First, Microsoft "introduces" Baystar to SCO and suggests they might be a good investment, and the next thing we know Microsoft is handing a Baystar property a big bag of money. Hmmm. This deal might be a fertile ground for some IBM subpoenas. |
Posted on 03/11/2005 3:59:40 PM PST by Peelod
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D88OTL0O0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
Burst.com, Microsoft reach tentative deal
By FOSTER KLUG
MAR. 11 12:51 P.M. ET A California software company suing Microsoft for allegedly stealing its multimedia streaming software said on its Web site that it has reached a tentative settlement with the world's largest software company.
The agreement between Burst.com and Microsoft Corp. should be completed within a week, Burst said in an announcement on its Web site.
Stacy Drake, a Microsoft spokeswoman, declined to provide specific details until the agreement was finalized, other than to say the companies had "reached a settlement in principle which resolves all the issues between our two companies."
[more]
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Ping
First, Microsoft "introduces" Baystar to SCO and suggests they might be a good investment, and the next thing we know Microsoft is handing a Baystar property a big bag of money. Hmmm. This deal might be a fertile ground for some IBM subpoenas. |
Bump up your Thorazine dose, Nicky. You're hallucinating again...
The crack-and-thorazine comments are generally place-holders until you receive the official talking points from Redmond. Let's wait until those arrive before continuing.
Microsoft is not the one on trial, IBM is. They're in so many right now, how could you forget? From trials in Europe for aiding the Nazi's, to those here in America for firing our military reservists. Your priorities are simply f'd.
What, you didn't read the article? Microsoft was sued for violating Burst's patents. They just agreed to settle for sixty million bucks. What do you do? Come in to play "look at the wookie." Throw a spear at IBM and suggest we all watch that instead. You shill; I shower your face with ploplets of puppy poop.
I guess what they did here was invite these Burst guys in, have them present their stuff, and then decide not to buy it. Lo and behold, the next rev of Windows Media Player has Burst's features in it. That's pretty much the classic way Microsoft steals other people's stuff.
They are thieves, or didn't you know that?
They've paid for their mistakes, but IBM really hasn't for not only crushing their competition like Microsoft has, but for their part in building up supercomputers for the Nazis Ruskies and Chicoms. Their latest little sellout to China should have been blocked on past discretions alone. Their day is coming though, once they get completely dependent on China for operations that little rug is going to get yanked right out from under them.
When it first came out that Microsoft had suggested to Baystar that they invest in SCO, thus perpetuating SCO's worthless harassment lawsuit, people wondered how Microsoft would make Baystar whole for the bath they took on the deal.
Now we know.
Microsoft is funding the SCO lawsuit against IBM. Which explains why two Microsoft shills would spend months crowing about that lawsuit here in the forum.
I shall send the crab lice of indigence to infest your sheets.
Not really, just further proof that Microsoft is doing the right thing and paying for it's mistakes. $60 million for this, $500 million for the supposed Eolas patent violation, $500 million for that EU shakedown, etc. Far cry from IBM, who fights back so hard with patent countersuits the companies they attack go completely out of business. Wonder what they're going to do to that US Army reservist they fired, who's now suing them? Grind him into the ground like everyone else, I'm sure
This is intelligently structured as two separate arms-length deals, but a jury could decide this was a quid pro quo. We shall see. That's for sure several years away, if it happens at all.
I kinda hope it does, because I think hiring a bankrupt company to spray lies about your competitor into the atmosphere is a reprehensible business tactic.
Yep, sounds like a pipe dream to me. According to your theory, Burst never had a legitimate complaint to begin with, since they only got $60 mil for it and $50 mil supposedly went to SCO.
I think hiring a bankrupt company to spray lies about your competitor into the atmosphere is a reprehensible business tactic.
Well the court hasn't rendered a verdict yet, much less tied it directly to an evil Microsoft plot, so right now you may actually be the one spreading reprehensible lies. My position remains as it always has, that IBM backstabbed their supposed business parter, and the owners of that property now might have a case about it especially when tried in Utah. Since the evidence is still being gathered, it will be a while before we know for sure either way.
I said nothing about whether Burst had a legitimate complaint. We do not know. And now we will never find out, since the payment of $60 million ends the case.
It is not a lie to state that Microsoft introduced Baystar to SCO and encouraged an investment; both Baystar and Microsoft have stated as much. It is not a lie to state that Baystar subsequently invested tens of millions of dollars in SCO, which was used to prosecute the lawsuit against IBM. And it is not a lie to say that Microsoft just paid a company that is listed on Baystar's web site as one of their properties, $60 million.
Since money is fungible, it is therefore also not a lie to state that Microsoft funded SCO's lawsuit against IBM.
To the extent that the SCO lawsuit is subsequently determined to have been a public relations and media attack that slandered IBM on the basis of no evidence whatsoever (which is what the judge has stated is a fact so far), Microsoft could find its bank account in IBM's gunsights. Let's have that lawsuit instead; that one will be more fun to watch.
Without proof it is, since "funded" infers Microsoft's money was specifically earmarked for SCO's lawsuit, when the evidence shows Microsoft's money had other obvious purposes. And IBM isn't off the hook yet anyway, SCO is still with the court's blessing gathering evidence, or at least trying to, since IBM is still dragging their feet.
It's premature for you to appoint yourself Microsoft's defense attorney. We don't know if such a trial will ever come to pass, let alone whether they will hire you to represent them. Based on your performance here, I sure wouldn't if I were them.
I'm not their defense counsel, nor do I want to be. I'm just pointing out you don't have jack squat to back up your accusations. And more importantly how ridiculous your obsession with Microsoft's pidly supposed transgressions are when your favorite company IBM is already in trial right now for assisting the Nazi's and firing US Army reservists, which way overshadow the technology theft trial they're also suffering with Compuware.
And you're not off the hook over IBM's recent sellout to the Chicoms either, just because it slid through the initial review process doesn't mean that those in Congress who originally complained are now satisfied. In fact from what I've read they're just as concerned as ever, as am I, and you better hope your new Lenovo buddies don't get busted over some spy scam, or you can kiss your IBM stock goodbye.
So you're just shilling for them here in the forum. I thought as much.
On the contrary, I have statements from Baystar that Microsoft introduced them to SCO. I have SCO's SEC filings, detailing the investment that Baystar subsequently made in SCO. I have the fact that the Baystar web site lists Burst.com as one of their portfolio companies. And now we have a news story that Microsoft has paid Burst.com sixty million dollars. Those are facts, Jack.
I don't have any IBM stock. I do, however, throw potatoes of pestilence at your hat.
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.
The owner of Burst wouldn't be the same Baystar that "invested" in SCO, would it? It couldn't be that a settlement with Burst was the agreed-upon payback for plowing some much-needed cash into SCO. Oh no, Microsoft would never do anything like that.