|
-
March 4th, 2004, 10:26 PM
#1
m$ funded scos legal battle
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html , a memo that sco has said is authentic has surfaced , m$ has been the funds behind sco. Yes virginia m$ is run by greed and anticompetitive actions. A tid bit :
I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will
have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar. The next deal we
should be able to get from $16-20, but it will be brutial as it is for
go to makerket work and some licences. I know we can do this
ps. do YOUR homework pooh, i know what i am talking about
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
-- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots
-
March 4th, 2004, 11:07 PM
#2
Hmmm, how did I have this strange feeling MS might be behind this? I mean Linux is a serious threat to MS's power, and SCO is just the right player that is the third man out that can be the bad guy in case something goes wrong. Maybe this is another "off the balance sheet partner..." and the conspiracy thoery ensues.
Thanks for the info on that.
And oh yeah. SCO sucks balls.
-
March 4th, 2004, 11:19 PM
#3
Hmmm.......................
1. Contempt of court? M$ are supposed to behave?
2. Time M$ was broken up under anti-trust legislation..............they got a reprieve..............now full sentence is due?.........Gates and his hangers on need the stock to nosedive to bring them into reality
"A leopard does not change its spots?"
and "scum always rises to the surface?"
Oh Well....................welcome to laissez faire capitalism?
Cheers
-
March 5th, 2004, 08:44 AM
#4
ps. do YOUR homework pooh, i know what i am talking about
What in god's name are you talking about? I never even knew about this until an hour ago?
-
March 5th, 2004, 02:58 PM
#5
I don't think M$ is crazy enough to do this. If this is true, I don't think the general public would accept it at all.
-
March 5th, 2004, 09:16 PM
#6
Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
What in god's name are you talking about? I never even knew about this until an hour ago?
it was in response to your "do your homework" comment on an ap assingment for calling M$ business based off of greed.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
-- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots
-
March 6th, 2004, 01:20 PM
#7
lumpy, you can't possibly tell me you have forgotten MS is split into two seperate entities... right?
So thus I must also assume since you have not forgotten, you are already aware that the one side alone will be held accountable? And it is "Microsoft", not M$. Both you and I are well aware of your ability to write proper English. No need to insult one another, because if you did do your homework it would also have entailed the study of when Microsoft split up and into how many segments the company operates seperately.
I'm not saying the segment of Microsoft that did this was in the right. In fact it has upset me very much. But you can't lump completely different branches of a company, which were seperated by law, into a singular "M$ IS SUXOR" when only one branch is at fault.
-
March 6th, 2004, 06:41 PM
#8
I had no idea MS was seperated into two entities. I will have to look that up.
-
March 6th, 2004, 10:59 PM
#9
-
March 7th, 2004, 02:37 AM
#10
I was under the impression that the breakup never happened.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/...548139,00.html
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
