[linux-elitists] microsoft's license - SCO
Tue Aug 12 20:38:03 PDT 2003
On 13 Aug 2003, "Karsten M. Self" <email@example.com> wrote:
> on Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:27:27AM -0400, Matthew W. Miller (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:43:23AM -0800, tek wrote:
> > >Does anyone else find it hilarious how microsoft spouts off about how
> > >they licensed SCO cause of their deep respect for IP and patents yet
> > >they are in court for one hell of alot of violations of other peoples
> > >IP and patent violations.
> > The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is spanking?
> This goes back to the days when Bill was fishing with his left hand in
> Dartmouth College's dumpsters for old printouts of BASIC while penning
> the Letter to Hobbyists with his right.
> Be really interesting if some BASIC copyright claims were to surface.
> Seems IBM might even have a claim dating to PC DOS days.
I'm not sure if this was already seen, but
What does it cost to license an OS you don't really need? A cool
$6 million. That's the figure a Microsoft sales pro let slip when
asked why the Redmond boys acquired a Unix license from The SCO
Group. According to my source, the pro said Microsoft ponied up
because "SCO needed money for their lawsuit problem." SCO PR dude
Blake Stowell issued a staunch denial, saying MS wants the code
for its Services for Unix product. Still, $6 mil would certainly
keep SCO attorney David Boies' legal machine nicely oiled -- and
the news is sure to make thousands of Microsoft conspiracy
Of course this should be no surprise to anyone here, but it's
interesting to hear it from the horse's orifice.
More information about the linux-elitists