Microsoft backed BayStar funding of SCO

Well, groklaw readers like me had suspected this all along. However, it still feels good to have it confirmed. Even more sweeter that it is the same lawsuit that (we speculate) Microsoft seeks to support that disclose this information. They cannot even call it a rogue employee’s (who got fired later) action as PJ discovered. Of course Microsoft denies this. And of course there is not going to be a black-and-white piece of paper saying that Microsoft underwrites the investment. If Microsoft was stupid, they pay SCO direct. Since they are smart enough to use a third party, they will be smart enough to avoid any direct link. Microsoft backing can come in any guise.

The important point is at least two persons in Microsoft is involved in this deal, and that someone declare on oath, that this is his understanding of the case. Darl McBride, that SCO big mouth, dare not even repeat what he says to the press in court papers.

Oh dear, what goes around do come around. While not illegal, backing the other side on a frivolous claim against your competitors is unethical practices. This will come back to haunt Microsoft, may be something big, like antitrust authority picking up on this to demand tighter sanction. At the minimum business partners and fouls alike will trust Microsoft just that little bit lesser.

One funny thing is that unlike HP pretexting case, there is no uproar. Apparently, we have come to expect this from Microsoft. The difference speaks volume and shows HP that it is in their interest to clean up their internal affairs.