Posted on 10/09/2006 1:05:09 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
In the ongoing saga of SCO v. IBM, one peripheral question has been the extent of Microsoft's financial support for SCO. Groklaw has dug up an interesting bit of data in the case, namely that Microsoft supposedly promised venture capital firm BayStar that they would guarantee their multimillion-dollar investment in SCO.
Buried in IBM's recent motion for summary judgment against SCO is a Declaration from BayStar general partner Larry Goldfarb. Near the beginning of the long-running legal soap opera, BayStar invested $50 million in SCO. In exchange for their investment, BayStar received 20,000 shares of preferred stock in SCO.
In his declaration, Goldfarb testifies that former Microsoft senior VP for corporate development and strategy Richard Emerson discussed "a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment." Goldfarb then said that after BayStar committed the $50 million to SCO's cause, Microsoft "stopped returning my phone calls and e-mails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft."
As SCO's case began showing more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese, BayStar began to regret that hefty investment. In April 2004, BayStar asked SCO to redeem its preferred stock for cash, accusing SCO of breaking the terms of the investment agreement. A few days later, BayStar pressed its case by calling for a change in management at SCO, saying that the company's management team was spending too much time and money dissing Linux instead of concentrating on its increasingly costly battle against IBM.
Things got messier with the two companies finally agreeing in June 2004 that SCO would repurchase $40 million of BayStar's stock for $13 million. However, before that deal was finalized BayStar went on the offensive again, accusing SCO of misleading it about the potential for revenues from its SCOsource UNIX licensing program. For the first two quarters of 2004, revenues totalled $30,000, instead of the millions SCO had told BayStar it expected. SCO and BayStar finally worked out a mutually acceptable agreement, and the divorce became final later that year.
Questions have been raised about the extent of Microsoft's involvement not only with BayStar, but with SCO itself. Microsoft stood to gain in the event of a SCO victory, as Linux would become a much-less-attractive option for companies looking to wean themselves from UNIX or even Microsoft's own commercial offerings. In March 2004, an e-mail surfaced that indicated Microsoft had played a part in hooking BayStar up with SCO. At the time, both BayStar and Microsoft denied that the Redmond, WA-based software giant had any financial involvement in the deal, although it did purchase a UNIX license from SCO in 2003, ultimately spending $16.6 million on licensing fees.
In the big picture of SCO's disastrous legal strategy, the extent of Microsoft's involvementif anywill ultimately be little more than a footnote in an obituary. SCO's case has proven to be so weak that it is difficult to envision any amount of investment by Microsoft, BayStar, or any other capital firm that would have us saying positive things about SCO and its prospects for survival.
I admit he made a big mistake. He took a gamble with possible returns in the nine or ten figures, and lost. A lot of people, including some on this board, believed SCO's hype about how strong a case they had.
AntiRepublic here so hates Microsoft he's willing to give IBM a free pass on them breaking their agreement with SCO to help develop the next Unix on Intel, and ruined them by helping flood the market with free Linux instead. They almost destroyed the entire US Unix market in the process, but thankfully it is recovering.
But there is justice in the world, despite his hate antiRepublic here has to work on M$ systems for a living! Is that not funny or what.
Why do they even need a pass? Unless they're under contract to stick with it, a company is free to abandon projects when they see better prospects. I never complained on any terms but technical (use of the inferior Win3.x API) that Microsoft dropped the collaboration with IBM over OS2/NT.
They almost destroyed the entire US Unix market in the process
They helped the market, with Linux. For one, because of Linux there are now a LOT more UNIX apps out there. Linux helped boost the sagging popularity of UNIX due to the increased capabilities of Microsoft's products.
But there is justice in the world, despite his hate antiRepublic here has to work on M$ systems for a living!
Not has to, choose to. I get very little of the administration headache, and get to have fun with .NET 2.0 all the time. Although 1.1 was quite headache-inducing, I could see the promise, which was mostly fulfilled in 2.0.
Quit projecting your philosophical software views onto me.
And learn my name, lead turkey.
Project Monterey was a collaboration to build the one united UNIX that would run on most popular platforms, something that had never before succeeded. The Santa Cruz Operation's (NOT the current lawsuit mill that is SCO) part in it was to provide expertise for the x86 architecture. The project quickly died to various problems in the UNIX market.
Caldera/The SCO Group (the company currently suing) bought the UNIX business from the Santa Cruz Operation just before Project Monterey died, and kept up the UNIX and Linux businesses, even attempting to merge the two in ways. Then they hired a new CEO who decided to turn the company into a lawsuit mill.
UNIX vendors have always made most of their money off of hardware and support contracts, relatively little on actually licensing the product (unless the license included support). That's why Linux fits in well with its support-only business model.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.