On 2003.11.26 10:09 Dustin Puryear wrote: > Yes, Microsoft did pay the licensing charges. However, I don't in any way > consider that an investment. I pay Microsoft for their software. Does that > make me a Microsoft investor? Investing and paying for a license are two > different things entirely. Even if Microsoft paid the license fee just to > put money into SCO's coffers, that doesn't make Microsoft an investor. :) > > Smart? Yes. >
Smart? How? SCO is the most hated company in the world and everyone knows Microsoft is responsible for it. Microsoft money is the only thing that keeps SCO operating. Without Microsoft, SCO would have goon the way of most other failures, a nice quiet auction. This is going to backfire on them hard. SCO will do and say anything Microsoft asks them to and who's in charge is apparent. SCO's "legal" actions make no sense at all and have only PR effect. SCO's press releases and copious interviews mirror's Microsoft's two year old "the GPL is theft, an unAmerican cancer that will wind you up in legal trouble" bull. None of it has a snowball's chance of working in court. It's so damaged their reputation that people are flocking away from SCO unix. SCO's stated business strategy serves only the deranged interests of Microsoft's FUD department. The whole thing is a huge lie and the louder Microsoft has SCO shout it, the worse off Microsoft will be. Microsoft's previous FUD campaign against free software was negatively received, especially when they followed it with higher licensing costs. It was a waste of money and effort. More importantly, it was a lie and it proved that Microsoft is dishonest. This SCO nonsense is more of the same and it shows that Microsoft has yet to change anything: Product development and security are not job #1, breaking the competition through any means is. Who wants to do business with a liar that's mostly interested in screwing other people? It's repulsive and that drives sales away.
