Microsoft Not Underwriting SCO's Legal Fees?

An anonymous reader wrote in to say "Linux Business Week carries this morning a claim that Microsoft only bought a Unix license from SCO Group because there's been a prior development project underway at Redmond that warranted it. "The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees," says a source within the company. "The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit." "

Not surprising

[SamBC]

For one, do you really expect Microsoft to admit publicly to any underhand tactics - unless you count halloween documents.

For two, it's been a reasonably popular view that SCO are a Microsoft Puppet for some time. I can't say whether it's true or not - I don't know. All I can say is that it seems to fit the evidence quite well.

I f itsmells like a duck..

[linuxislandsucks]

If it smells like a duck and craps like on..then most problably it is a DUCK!

Side Note: The Bank loan secured by the Founder listeed in the financials pays for monthly cash flow needed to keep afloat..its due in October with a promise by founder to keep SCO Group afloat through end of Novemeber..thus they do not have the monye for a legal fund .. the only way they can get it is through license fees.. :)

Microsoft feeling lonely

[LiquidCoooled]

The lawsuit was seen as indirect supporting our position on the value of IP. Since other software vendors who depend on software licenses haven't been exactly falling all over themselves to support our position, seeing something that supported it was welcome.

Microsoft have pushed themselves onto this very high moral ground, and when they looked round to see if everyone had followed them, they were strangely alone....

Digital rights management, and self destructing emails are all to cover Microsofts own backside rather than getting on with the important task of giving the users what they actually want.
Linux offers this, and they are scared - rightly so.

Cringely covered this

[Nutrimentia]

Cringely's current article [pbs.org] has his take on SCO. He mentioned that he wouldn't be surprised to find Microsoft bankrolling the legal,even though he wasn't predicting it either.

In the end though, he concedes he doesn't know what is going on, and neither do other people in the field. Me? I'm guessing it will end up being a totally ill-informed upper managemnet decision that is going to roll heads.

Re:speaking of OSX

[rot26]

From what I understand, Apple already has a license (someone please correct me if I'm wrong...) Also, SCO claims that IBM took SCO code and put it in the Linux kernel, which would not affect BSD at all. Of course, there is nothing stoping SCO from claiming that (for example) Apple did the same thing - releasing SCO IP back into the BSD tree.

SCO's predecessors already tried this same thing with BSD a long time ago, and got smacked down HARD (although the details are sealed by court order for some reason.) BSD is totally immune in this action, no license (from SCO) required.

Re:Doesn't M$ Own SCO, anyway?

[Eunuchswear]

Am I some kind of obsessive bore? I guess so. Here we go again.

1. Microsoft used to own up to 12.3% of SCO.

2. Microsoft sold [nasdaq.com] all of its SCO stock on 27 January 2000.

3. Not that that matters because it's not SCO that's suing IBM, it's "The SCO Group", which is realy Caldera. Microsoft have never owned Caldera stock.

MS Complies w/ GPL

[_Sprocket_]

I highly doubt that MS would have bought Interix if there was any question that their product contained or was tainted by any GPL code at all. The legal threat of the GPL would hurt them MUCH more than SCO. With SCO, they could easily settle. Somehow I don't see the FSF settling for any reasonable sum. BSD is a non issue due to the license.

The GPL is a non-issue for Microsoft too. After all, Microsoft complies with GPL requirements for the code they sell. Note the Licensing and Purchasing [microsoft.com] page for the aforementioned Unix compatability product. You'll notice a grey box on the right-hand side that specifically deals with the GPL'd applications included in the product. You can even purchase a CD or download sources directly from Microsoft's FTP servers... including the GPL itself [microsoft.com].