About two weeks ago, Linux "philosopher" Eric Raymond was made aware of an e-mail from a venture capitalist to a highly placed SCO official, making reference to at least $106 million in funding from Microsoft to the struggling vendor (which is currently embroiled in legal battles with the Linux community).
If Microsoft was indeed involved, the implications are enormous. As background, in a related vein, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reported to be "investigating many complaints of under-the-table funding, stock-kiting, illegal insider trading, and money-laundering involving Microsoft or Microsoft-connected individuals [linked] to SCO".
But even if the SEC didn`t care that a company like Microsoft saw fit to assist another company financially or not, such involvement would raise too many questions for comfort.
K-i-s-s-i-n-g
Both Microsoft and SCO deny any direct link. However, BayStar Capital, the venture capital firm referred to in the memo as a conduit for SCO funding, has invested $50 million in SCO. And Vulcan Capital, the investment firm established by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, has invested heavily in BayStar. Allen continues to be the second-largest Microsoft shareowner, after Bill Gates, reports NewsFactor.
Such intricacies aside, who can benefit most from SCO winning its battles against the open source software (OSS) movement? Microsoft.
It appears to feel increasingly threatened by the growth of Linux on servers, and next, if Novell is to be believed, on the desktop. SCO is taking potshots at Linux users and sellers, and so any such funding would be viewed with a lot of suspicion.
Many people view SCO`s case as questionable (I won`t comment on the legal quagmire), and if Microsoft shared this opinion, support for such a case would seem cynical at best.
I increasingly feel as though I bought some prime real estate in Ulundi, and come election time, I`m be the poor sod who stands between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Carel Alberts, Technology editor, ITWeb
As I say, Microsoft denies it has any financial links with SCO other than a licensing agreement in months gone by, to indemnify its customers. Some would argue that even that was a cynical move, intended to lend much-needed credibility to SCO`s courtroom antics.
Or is this inference misguided? Another reasonable interpretation of such funding could be that Microsoft believes in SCO`s case (and its chances of winning). Then, open source opponents to Microsoft`s proprietary offerings would also take note - if Microsoft believes SCO can win, something must surely be up?
But Microsoft would have been ill-advised to do such a thing. What would its shareholders say of such an enormous payment of cash out of company coffers?
They would ask what we`re asking and everybody wants to know - what does Microsoft know that we don`t? Only a fair degree of certainty in the outcome of the case could justify such a payment in terms of shareholder interest.
My enemy`s enemy is my friend
The other problem of this getting out is that any act in support of its enemy`s enemy would signal to customers that Microsoft doesn`t believe it can beat Linux in the open market.
Even if Microsoft knew something that none of us do, and SCO wins its battle against Linux, and Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance excise every bit of open source software in the Northern Province government - would it have been worth it?
Because the trouble is, one`s intentions get out and one`s horse sometimes loses and one`s customers may very well decide to bet on the popular outsider instead.
The poor sod in the middle
Tensions between OSS and Microsoft are mounting, not to mention between SCO and OSS, and the customer is in danger of getting in the way. Remember the theories about MyDoom?
Being in the middle of it all, and with so many conspiracy theories to deal with, I increasingly feel as though I bought some prime real estate in Ulundi, and come election time, I`m be the poor sod who stands between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Competition is supposed to be healthy, not militant and hair-raising. Can I please be left out of it?
Share