decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Monday, October 09 2006 @ 03:27 PM EDT

I now have the Larry Goldfarb Declaration, and now that I've had a chance to read it in full, what he says is actually a great deal more damaging, if established, than the part IBM highlighted in its Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims. According to the Declaration, Richard Emerson was not the only Microsoft employee Goldfarb was dealing with in connection with the BayStar investment in SCO. He mentions by name two others, from two other departments. He says, "I had discussions with Kenneth Lustig, Microsoft's managing director of intellectual property and Tivanka Ellawala, from Microsoft's corporate development department regarding the SCO deal." If true, that would seem to rule out Mr. Emerson being on some kind of rogue mission.

You can see Mr. Lustig on this Directions on Microsoft chart of executives, showing him reporting to Marshall Phelps, who in turn is under Brad Smith, the Microsoft General Counsel and Secretary.

[Update: Oct. 9, 2006, 5:25 PM - I see Mr. Emerson is now on the board of directors of Clearwire. And LinkedIn shows Ellawala currently with Microsoft. Its summary says "Leads Corporate Development activities across the internet, media and wireless spaces at Microsoft. Memeber of 3-person Corporate Development leadership team responsible for all M&A, Strategic Investments and Joint Venture discussions at Microsoft."]

Goldfarb recounts conversations with David Boies as well, and Goldfarb, then considering investing in SCO back in 2003, says Boies told him that he thought IBM was going to settle quickly. Obviously that didn't happen. Later, when Goldfarb asked to see the evidence against IBM, so his consultants could evaluate the strength of SCO's claims, he says that Boies said he'd provide it but he never did. Eventually Boies stopped taking Goldfarb's phone calls, the Declaration relates. I'm wondering now if Mr. Boies will end up a witness in this case, if IBM's motion is denied and SCO gets to proceed with its interference claims. I'd venture a guess that SCO wishes it had never accused IBM of interfering with SCO's business relationship with BayStar. But let's let Goldfarb tell his own story and I'll get the PDF up as soon as I can. This is just one of more than 500 exhibits that IBM has provided the court in support of its various motions for summary judgment. It's number 165. I'll have the exhibits list up as text shortly as well.

Also, I thought you'd want to know that Ray Noorda died today, at 82, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. Todd Weiss at ComputerWorld has a more fitting tribute, with a link to the Canopy Group statement.

Update: Todd Bishop at the Seattle Post Intelligencer has Microsoft's response. Here is their statement:

Microsoft has no financial relationship with BayStar and never agreed to guarantee any of BayStar's $50 million investment in SCO. The BayStar declaration confirms that no guarantee was ever provided. Microsoft does have a deal with SCO that has been widely reported. We paid SCO for licensing rights to ensure IT interoperability for UNIX migration technology, currently in use in Microsoft Utilities for UNIX-based Applications.

Update: 6:00 PM October 10 - ZDNET has an article now too which is particularly useful, because it links to all the older happenings. As an aid, here is what BayStar said in 2004, when the Michael Anderer memo claiming a Microsoft funding connection surfaced:

An investment company has corroborated allegations of ties between the two firms fighting against open source. Investment company BayStar Capital has confirmed ties between two Linux foes, saying on Thursday that a Microsoft referral led to $50m (£27.8m) in BayStar funding for the SCO Group. "Yes, Microsoft did introduce BayStar to SCO," a BayStar representative said on Thursday, declining to share further details and repeating the firm's earlier position that Microsoft did not actually invest money in the deal.

So the Declaration is consistent.

**********************************

SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947) [address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

DECLARATION OF
LAWRENCE R. GOLDFARB


Civl No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

1. I, Lawrence R. Goldfarb, declare as follows:

1. This declaration is submitted in connection with the lawsuit entitled The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK (D. Utah 2003). Unless stated otherwise, i make this declaration based upon personal knowledge.

2. I am one of the founders and managing members of BayStar Capital Management, LLC ("BayStar"). I have served as a managing member of BayStar since 1998. BayStar is the sole general partner of BayStar Capital II, L.P. (the "Fund"), an investment fund formed in 2001.

4. No one from IBM ever had any communications with me or, to my knowledge, anyone at BayStar relating to SCO. As I discuss below, BayStar terminated its relationship with SCO for multiple reasons. BayStar's decision to terminate its relationship with SCO had nothing whatsoever to do with any communications with or conduct of IBM.

5. In late 2003, the Fund and aligned investors invested a total of $50 million in SCO. I was one of the three managing members of BayStar who approved the investment, and I was intimately involved with all details of the transaction.

6. Sometime in 2003, I was approached by Richard Emerson (Microsoft's senior vice president for corporate development and stratedy) about investing in SCO, a company about which I knew little or nothing at the time. Mr. Emerson stated that Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit about IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux. For that reason, Microsoft wanted to further its interest through independent investors like BayStar.

7. I did some research on SCO, and had conversations with Mr. Emerson about it as well. In the course of my research about SCO, I became concerned that SCO might be merely a litigation company. As a result, Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would "backstop," or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment. In addition, I had discussions with Kenneth Lustig, Microsoft's managing director of intellectual property and Tivanka Ellawala, from Microsoft's corporate development department regarding the SCO deal. As part of these discussions, Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO. However, Microsoft would not agree to put anything in writing on this point.

8. The other managing members of BayStar and I met with Darl McBride of SCO and heard his pitch about SCO's business and SCO's lawsuit against IBM. We also discussed SCO's lawsuit with David Boies from SCO's outside law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Mr. Boies informed me that he believed that IBM would settle the case fairly quickly.

9. As a result of Microsoft's and SCO's assurances, the other managing members of Bay Star and I voted unanimously to make the $50 million investment in SCO. the transaction was completed on October 16, 2003.

10. Not long after making the investment, I became very concerned about it. Among other things, it became clear to me that the BayStar investment was used primarily to pay David Boies' law firm. Beyond that, SCO's stock price declined, Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft.

11. I was also very concerned about SCO's high cash burn rate and whether its UNIX products were viable in the marketplace.

12. Thereafter, I had meetings with David Boies and asked him to provide me the evidence supporting SCO's case against IBM, so that my consultants could analyze the strength of the claims. Mr. Boies promised to provide the evidence but never did. Eventually Mr. Boies stopped returning my calls.

13. SECTION REDACTED.

14. Having received no satisfactory response from SCO, I determined that BayStar's obligations to its investors required the Fund to get out of this investment. I negotiated the terms of the deal to retire the investment on behalf of BayStar. SCO's outside law firm, negotiated the settlement on behalf of SCO, including the financial terms of the deal. 15. Ultimately, BayStar, on behalf of the Fund, agreed to sell its SCO Preferred Shares back to SCO for $13 million cash payments to BayStar and the issuance of shares of SCO common stock.

16. BayStar's decision to redeem its shares in SCO and retire its investment in SCO had nothing whatsoever to do with IBM or any representative of IBM. No one from IBM ever contacted me or anyhone else at BayStar about SCO, BayStar's investment in SCO, or anything else. Other than one investment that involved IBM years before BayStar's investment in SCO (and in connection with submitting this declaration), I have had no dealings with IBM or any of its representatives.

17. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed September 13, 2006.
Larkspur, California

___[signature]___
Lawrence R. Goldfarb


  


The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement | 595 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: ralevin on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT
As no mortal is perfect, and we are all mortal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:15 PM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

But let's let Goldfarb tell his own story and I'll get the PDF up as soon as I can.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:18 PM EDT
Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good news for Linux companies...
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:20 PM EDT
Whatever the morals of this, or the effect on the SCO-IBM case this is really good news for Linux companies.

If you wanted me to think up a way that would give Linux even more credibility and show up Microsoft as being devious, untrustworthy and untruthful I could not dream up anything better than this.

Web Sig: Eddy Currents

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit
Authored by: jdg on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:22 PM EDT
I had missed the "tense" in this part. It says in the
"pending" lawsuit. I would take this to mean that it was BEFORE the
lawsuit was filed. This looks more collusive to me.

---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Sometime in 2003,"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT
Sounds more like "Once upon a time." to me.
Was it in January, or December?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: fredex on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT
that's like making a deal with the devil!

I know some businesses are greedy, but here's this man who manages other
people's money, gambling, er, I mean "investing" it in a firm, already
on the skids, based primarily on verbal promises to make sure they don't lose
their shirts on it, and a promise that the other side would promptly wimp out.
One of those promissors even said they would not promise in writing. What more
information does one need to know it's a shady (and highly risky) deal and
should be avoided?

Plainly not an honorable way to make one's money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Look on Mr. Boies Face...
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:29 PM EDT
"Mr. Boies informed me that he believed that IBM would settle the case
fairly quickly."

I'd love to have seen the look on David Boies's face when he realized that he'd
badly mis-calculated and that IBM had no intention of settling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Add this to the Microsoft Dirty Standards Tricks and their Citrix OS2 Games = funny money Games!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:29 PM EDT
I will post a Groklaw search of those Microsoft Dirty Standards Tricks if I can
find it... but, this game is not unlike the one they played where they got VCs
to invest with Microsoft, Novell, and Intl into a startup called Citrix back in
the early 1990s (Citrix was founded by the head of IBM's OS/2 Division and who
was lured out of IBM by this MONEY from Microsoft and company) and then Citrix
hired many KEY programmers out of IBM's OS/2 division WHILE Microsoft then got
Windows 3.x up and stable and the application developers then went with that
because it was first (or appeared to be first). Note that Citrix would not
exist then without a license to develop MS-OS/2 from Microsoft, and would not
exist today without the same type of license to work with NT, 2000, XP, and most
likely now Vista!

Bad Microsoft - European and US Anti-Trust folks should take note of this
pattern of bad bahaviour by Microsoft and their AGENTS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:29 PM EDT
Poor Mr. Goldfarb sounds like he bought swampland on top of a
"superfund" site.

How come they haven't gone after SCO and Microsoft themselves for providing
false information? Perhaps "caveat emptor" applies to large funds
even in cases of overt fraud?

Wow?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:30 PM EDT
If SCOG denies the statements made by Larry Goldfarb does that not mean that the
judge can not decide it as it would not be a matter of law, but of disputed
facts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Royal Bank of Canada is missing
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:32 PM EDT

The story at the time was that the Royal Bank of Canada put in $30 million, and Baystar provided the other $20 million.

Later Baystar bought the RBC shares for an undisclosed amount. The shares were converted to ordinary shares plus cash; and Baystar could only sell a percentage of the average volume each day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:35 PM EDT
IANAL but my understanding in the UK at least was that funding a lawsuit makes
you liable to the financial penalties of losing the lawsuit even if you are not
formally part of the case.

Does this open up microsoft to action from IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave..
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:39 PM EDT
when first we pratice to deceive.

- Sir Walter Scott

This just gets better and better. I may have to by shares in a popcorn company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Baystar Meltdown
Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:45 PM EDT
An investor advisory newletter published in early 2005 noted that Baystar's assets under management had dropped from about $300 million on Jan 1, 2004 to about $200 million on Jan 1, 2005. The advisory note also noted Baystar 2 (the largest fund) had recorded -7% performance in NAV in the year 2004 and had been subject to numerous redemption requests.

A second European review, , with access to Goldfarb's investor letters says the assets under management were $171 million on Jan 1, 2005 and fell to 110 Million in May 2005.

These reports indicate that Baystar lost more than $100 million to investor withdrawals in 2004 and suffered $13-20 Million in investment losses (-7% of asset range). The losses continued unabated into May 2005, prompting the collapse of the hedge and departure of Steve Lamar. Goldfarb announced a revised fund in July, 2005 with new principals. This group perhaps never organized, because the current Baystar incarnation, LRGCAPITAL.com does not mention these individuals.

Baystar managed to redeem most of Royal Bank's preferred shares in May 2004, and received $13MM back from SCOX in August.

Baystar's fabled "deal flow" abruptly ended in January 2005 when estranged partner Steve Derby presented his redemption demand for his big investment. Late period PIPES were large scale: SLS $6MM, NAPS $3MM, MCHX 1.5MM, GEB $3MM (many Baystar pipes were for less than 1MM). The deal-making was active throughout 2004, strongest in the first quarter.

The asset division between Derby's SDS and Baystar (2/3 v. 1/3) later used to register SCO shares may indicate that only about $37 Million of $110 Million in May 2005 assets were actually Baystars. It SCO loss could have exceeded its remaining assets.

Current Baystar publicity has Goldfarb cohosting high power dinners with Microsoft. One can assume the Goldfarb v. Microsoft bad blood does not run too terribly deep.

The record is too skeletal to indicate whether a "Backstop" existed for the Royal Bank buyback, or one was made earlier at the time of the SCO pipe. Baystar's deal spreadsheet notes a PIPE made with a Canadian mining concern, Queenstake, near the time of the SCOX renegotiation in August 2004, but the deal is for less than $1MM dollars. Mining stocks are rare on the Baystar deal ledger, but a deal with Apex Silver Mine occured in Feb 2004 (noted with an unexplained asterix on the Baystar accounting).

Proximate to the original SCOX deal was a undenominated investment in Teton Petroleum which was investing in sketchy Russian Natural Gas companies at the time. Baystars sole private investment (in Reliant Pharmaceuticals) occurs just prior to the SCOX deal.

What is clear from Baystar ledger, is that the SCOX PIPE at $20MM in funds was very much greater than the typical Baystar deal and the risk much higher. Deals with larger total value were very heavily syndicated. Other deals provided a more attractive convertible-to-common term (much below market) rather than at market as in the SCOX case.

Goldfarb had an interview published on Oct. 1, 2003, he said, " In order for our PIPE's business to be profitable, every deal has to work. Well, when you take this lottery metality [of the VC's] and you combine it with this business, it doesn't fit at all".... The venture capital business is built on the premise of odds. That is you do 20 deals a year and write off X number of them."..... "I think that it is very important to understand [that] not how this business works. We're singles hitters. We don't hit home runs. But we hit a hell of a lot of singles. We're like a lead-off batter:We get on base a lot."

This interview, just before the SCOX pipe, establishes that Goldfarb didn't want to be part of a lawsuit riches or roadkill lottery, and fully expected his SCOX investment to be protected.

I'm reasonably sure that Baystar's Larry Goldfarb was sold the story that Hollywood studios will pay for their render farms, and SCO had a road to riches. Goldfarb has a known weakness for Hollywood hangers-on.

Forbes media mangler Lyon issued reporting at the time of the Pipe Deal that had Morgan Keegan Banker C. Patrick Scholes making calls to Hollywood studios, and had Larry Goldfarb "spending a lot of time calling around to potential licensees, and we believe SCO is going to sign enough companies...."

Looks like Scholes salted the gold mine, by arranging favorable stories, among clueless Hollywood executives. Why was an investment banker doing the cold-call license sales for SCO? Morgan Keegan got a commission on the pipe.

If this scenario is correct, Thad Beier is a Linux hero, by "dynamiting" the assay office before the ore could be thieved. He did this by pointing out Hollywood Render farms were not about to be extorted for a SCO tax.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: mwexler on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:49 PM EDT
There is something that doesn't quite ring true about this. Generally when
making a substantial investment like this one would do "due
dilligence" before investing the money. Among other things this would
include getting the details from Boies about the case and getting a firm
agreement with Microsoft. The fact that they funded the $50,000,000.00 before
completing the due dillegence seems awfully fishy. It makes me doubt the
veracity of Goldfarb's statement, or at least that he is leaving out some
important information. Of course, I haven't read the whole statement.

Does anybody else know why Baystar would have put in the $50,000,000.00 before
getting answers to these basic questions?

[ Reply to This | # ]

attorney client priviledge
Authored by: mossc on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:50 PM EDT
The mention of David Boies brings up some questions I have had.

One thing I have wondered about is the state of attorney client priviledge when
a company goes into bankruptcy.
That priviledge rests with the company not the individuals, correct?

So if TSG has to declare then the agent appointed by the judge is acting on
behalf of the creditors. Would he not have access to all privileged
documentation?

Would he be responsible for using that information for the benefit of the
creditors (possibly Novell)?

If so could this lead to recovery of outstanding Sys V license fees from those
who have capitalized on this litigation including lawyers, officers of the
company and board members(assuming proof it was done in bad faith)?

If there is secret legal advice discussions/documents available that show who
knew what when and implicate David Boies, microsoft, sun etc in the scheme could
they be liable?


Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whois Tivanka Ellawala
Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Tivanka Ellawala
Corporate Development - Microsoft Corporation
Greater Seattle Area
Current:
Corporate Development at Microsoft
Senior Director at Microsoft
Past:
Mergers & Acquisitons at Merrill Lynch
Education
University of Oxford
Stanford University
Summary

Leads Corproate Development activities accross the internet, media and wireless spaces at Microsoft.

Memeber of 3-person Corporate Development leadership team responsible for all M&A, Strategic Investments and Joint Venture discussions at Microsoft.

Extensive experience sourcing, structuring and negotiating acquisitions, investments and JVs on Microsoft's behalf
10+ years M&A experience

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:14 PM EDT
Baystar's Larry Goldfarb and the Michael Anderer email both identify Rich Emerson as the key Microsoft contact. Goldfarb talks about at "guarantee or backstop". Anderer spoke of Rich doing a continuing set of periodic 3 to 4 or 5 million dollar infusions directly into SCO. The AccesData purchase from Canopy in April 2004 would fit this supposed pattern, as would the Vintela co-invesment 6 months later (Nov 2004)

Microsoft issued an relatively unusual press release in mid-September 2003, announcing that Emerson was leaving to "spend more time with his family". The announcement got published in the New York Times, and Emerson's supposed end date was August 31, 2003. Emerson, it was stated, would continue to consult on "complicated transactions".

Emerson's position as "SVP Corporate Development" reporting directly to Steve Ballmer was abolished on his resignation, and the Corp Development division demoted to supervision by the CFO Connors. After a period, Brian Roberts, Emerson's long time deputy was promoted to run the division. Robert's left Microsoft in 2005 to work with Emerson at his new position at Evercore Partners. Roberts and Emerson have been associated since running telecomunications portfolio in the dot-com days at the investment bank Lazard-Freres.

Emerson made political contributions to the Bush re-election campaign in mid-September 2003, and listed his occupation as Microsoft Executive, so his August 2003 resignation is a bit atmospheric or conveniently backdated.

Emerson had been given a 12 Million dollar loan as a signing bonus to MSFT in 2000. A mid-September 2003 proxy noted that he was paying the loan back with vested stock options. The options were underwater, but had a positive Black-Scholes valuation based on their future potential to be profitable. Emerson used this positive valuation to retire the loan on a cash free basis.

Emerson had little public trace through most of 2004, and then acquired a position at Evercore Partners, a mergers and acquisitions investment advisor. Evercore has since IPO'd, and is traded as EVR.

Emerson and a Baystar principal Andrew Farkas were both listed as advisors/ investors in a NYC Venture, I-Hatch Partners. A Farkas relative (Younger brother, I believe) is the fund executive. This is good evidence that the Baystar and Emerson relationship had alternative means of communication, and unreturned phone calls from MSFT headquarters should be considered a convenient fiction.

Emerson and deputy Roberts also show up in July 2003 SEC documents as the signatory for the Microsoft investment in IMMR (Immersion) that had patent suits against Sony and MSFT. The MSFT stock investment in IMMR ended the Microsoft portion of the suit (for game controllers) while ensuring the suit against arch-rival Sony would continue. This "investment in a strategic lawsuit" has echoes in the Baystar Pipe deal occuring just months later. We can conclude that the IMMR and SCOX investments are implementations of a similar strategic idea.

Another current lawsuit in August 2003, was the Eolas v. Microsoft patent dispute, that had just concluded in a $500 million dollar judgement against MSFT. Curiously, MSFT attorneys had tried to implicate IBM as funding the Eolas lawsuit, on account of a trademark purchase made by IBM (the "e" at sign) just prior to the suit. It could be argued that some in MSFT saw SCOX v. IBM as tit-for-tat vis-a-vis Eolas v. MSFT.

Sources:
http://news.com.com/2100-1022_3-5079594.html [com.com]
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/0001 19312503051346/ ddef14a.htm [sec.gov]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=950 3E6DB103AF933A1575AC0A9659C8B63 [nytimes.com]
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?cit y=SEATTLE&st=WA&; last=EMerson&first=RICHARD [newsmeat.com]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-Trust Question!
Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:23 PM EDT
Microsoft has been under the Microscope, both in the U.S. and Europe, for anti-trust activities. What are the possible ramifications of Microsoft indirectly investing in (or strongly encouraging the investment in) a company who could be characterized as a legal attack dog at the throat of their competition?

You would think the anti-trust authorities would take a dim view.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM conduct
Authored by: xtifr on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:27 PM EDT
First he says, "BayStar's decision to terminate its relationship with SCO
had nothing whatsoever to do with any communications with or conduct of
IBM." But later he says, "Mr. Boies informed me that he believed that
IBM would settle the case fairly quickly." But IBM didn't settle, and that
conduct (not settling) seems to have been a definite factor in the Baystar's
decision.

Can SCO sue IBM for not settling when SCO sued IBM? :)

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Here, please
Authored by: rc on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:36 PM EDT
And PLEASE keep if OFFTOPIC! ;-)

---
rc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does politics enter into this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:43 PM EDT
Conspiracy theory
There is some reason to believe that George W. Bush had something to do with Microsoft's escape from the antitrust punishment that it deserved. It seems likely that the Republicans are going to self-destruct for the upcoming elections. Republicans may lose control of House and Senate

So, given that this new revelation may focus attention on Microsoft and given that Microsoft may lose political support, is it possible/likely that Microsoft's punishment could be reinstated? It seems to me that Microsoft promised (in writing) that it would behave. If it can be shown that Microsoft breached its promises, could that be used to bring them back before the court (sort of like they breached their probation)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emerson and MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:45 PM EDT
I posted these in the previous article:

Cnet article about his exit and loan from MS.

NY Times article

Doesn't sound like he left on bad terms if you may continue to advise on "complicated transactions".

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:55 PM EDT
If Boies has interposed himself such that he can be called as a witness, I'd
guess that this eliminates him from representing SCO at trial. If so, that would
seem to eliminate the one big surprise SCO might have kept in its quiver.

I was expecting, for example, that Boies might appear on the scene in taking Sam
Palmisano's deposition. But we've never heard a peep about that -- and I'm
wondering if the deposition ever in fact happened?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ray Noorda Dies
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 05:58 PM EDT
I think PJ should write an In Memoriam.
A tear-jerker or so. With a lot of emotions. To honor him.
It's a great opportunity to make SCO look bad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:17 PM EDT
    • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:19 PM EDT
    • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:34 PM EDT
      • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 07:09 PM EDT
  • Ray Noorda Dies - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:27 PM EDT
  • Ray Noorda Dies - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 08:23 PM EDT
  • Ray Noorda R.I.P. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:24 AM EDT
  • Ray Noorda Dies - Authored by: DustDevil on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:20 AM EDT
FOIA request w/ SEC
Authored by: radicimo on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:06 PM EDT
I still have an FOIA request pending with the SEC regarding any information they
may have regarding that PIPE transaction and the involvement of Baystar. It has
been over 16 months. I know there was one other poster on the Yahoo! SCOX
boards who had also submitted an FOIA request similarly. My conclusion is that
the SEC is still investigating this transaction. I would like to hope that
those wheels of justice are still working, and not that my request was dropped
into a void.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brad Smith, the Microsoft General Counsel and Secretary. Main Microsoft lawyer in EU
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:08 PM EDT

Brad Smith was the lawyer fighting the appeal against the conviction for abuse of monopoly over here in Europe. He was the person who gave press statements.

He is the most charming person, and can explain things brilliantly. He argued against the conviction, and against the fine. I wonder what he really believes about the SCO deal; or do lawyers just act as mouthpieces for their clients

[ Reply to This | # ]

They Call Them Flipper...Flipper.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:09 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

I had wondered if IBM was going to force somebody to flip and turn evidence they
could use to puncture the MicroSoft veil. I just didn't expect it to happen
before the end of the trial. I thought they were going for the settlement
phase--"You don't want to go to jail and owe us money for the next thirty
lifetimes, you tell us who put you up to this."

Or, maybe that was what SCO was hoping for to dig their way out of trouble, and
this is IBM's way of saying they either better have something more damaging or
IBM doesn't need them, and they are doomed.

Mr. Gates? You're old friend Karma is here to see you. It's been a while, he
knows, but he really needs to see you soon....

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is
where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my
friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future."
-Criswell
"Plan 9 From Outer Space"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was Microsoft Interfering
Authored by: AH1 on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:19 PM EDT
Given the statements made by Goldfarb does IBM have a case against Microsoft for
interferring in IBM's Linux business by convincing Goldfarb and Baystar that
they would "backstop" their investment. Goldfarb makes the statement
that Microsoft approached Goldfarb to invest in SCO. Goldfarb states
"Sometime in 2003, I was approached by Richard Emerson (Microsoft's senior
vice president for corporate development and stratedy) about investing in SCO, a
company about which I knew little or nothing at the time. Mr. Emerson stated
that Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit about IBM and the
Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM
or Linux. For that reason, Microsoft wanted to further its interest through
independent investors like BayStar."
If this is true then Microsoft seems to be interfering with IBM's ability to do
business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gak!
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:25 PM EDT


This stuff is really scary

*****
6. Sometime in 2003, I was approached by Richard Emerson (Microsoft's senior
vice president for corporate development and stratedy) about investing in SCO, a
company about which I knew little or nothing at the time. Mr. Emerson stated
that Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit about IBM and the
Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM
or Linux. For that reason, Microsoft wanted to further its interest through
independent investors like BayStar.

7. I did some research on SCO, and had conversations with Mr. Emerson about it
as well. In the course of my research about SCO, I became concerned that SCO
might be merely a litigation company. As a result, Mr. Emerson and I discussed a
variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would "backstop,"
or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment. In addition, I had discussions
with Kenneth Lustig, Microsoft's managing director of intellectual property and
Tivanka Ellawala, from Microsoft's corporate development department regarding
the SCO deal. As part of these discussions, Microsoft assured me that it would
in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO. However, Microsoft would not
agree to put anything in writing on this point.

8. The other managing members of BayStar and I met with Darl McBride of SCO and
heard his pitch about SCO's business and SCO's lawsuit against IBM. We also
discussed SCO's lawsuit with David Boies from SCO's outside law firm, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP. Mr. Boies informed me that he believed that IBM
would settle the case fairly quickly.
*****

Microsoft staffers were showing a level of intelligence that of a Pet Rock.

As to Baystar, if they were certain that they had support, I can see why they
would do that. I've done many deals that way. If you have some one's word that
they will do something, and they've been reliable in the past, why wouldn't
you?

And this begins to look more and more like a shake down.


---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:34 PM EDT
I always find it amusing when intuitions about things turn out to be true. Many
people were guessing that Microsoft was using SCO as a proxy attack against
Linux, and open source. And now we have some fairly strong evidence that
Microsoft was indeed behind these actions, and that it was their goal.

While it's nice to see our guesses vindicated, it's even better to see how Linux
and Microsoft have fared since. Even though the lawsuit isn't really about Linux
anymore, a win for IBM will tend to give it a clean legal bill of health (even
though we could have said that it had one a LONG time ago. The code has been
open from the beginning after all.)

I must again bow to Mae West, who said: "Say what you want about me, just
spell my name right." All of the press about Linux's legal troubles just
put them in the papers all that much more as an alternative to MS, although one
with alleged legal problems.

And the upshot is: they all know how to spell Linux now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And of course... SCOX up 8 cents...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:35 PM EDT
...on the bad news.

Figures.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: nuthead on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:43 PM EDT
Mr. Boies promised to provide the evidence but never did.

Now, why does that sound so familiar? :D

[ Reply to This | # ]

50 millions
Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:51 PM EDT
Goldfarb mentions a 50 millions investment. But the public statements made at the time were 20 millions from Baystar and 30 millions from RBC. This suggests Baystar is the unknown client behind RBC.

Why Baystar didn't just invest 50 millions and openly say so? Why did they hide behind RBC for an additonal 30 millions? It is not like they wanted to be anonymous for they were acknowledging 20 millions.

Could it be FUD? Could it be they wanted to create the impression that more than one investor was to invest in SCOG? Did they want to give credibility to SCOG? Why would they do that? Was it a condition for Microsoft to backstop the deal?

I wonder why Goldfarb signed this declaration at all. What did IBM offered him? An occasion to payback Microsoft and SCOG for a little scam? Money? Or is it that IBM knows enough to sue him anytime they want and didn't leave him much choice?

It is odd that the new incarnation of Baystar and Microsoft are cohosting a show as stats_for_all pointed out. This does not work well with the payback for a grudge theory. Link

Perhaps we will find out that even if there is no written deal, Microsoft did backstop the investment. Or perhaps not for what I know. But if there is no grudge, then why would we believe there should be a cause for a grudge? Microsoft must have done something to quench any ill will. Perhaps participating into the conference is part of the amends.

At this point everything looks fishy and suspicious. The denial from Microsoft spokeperson in the WSJ was not that there was no talk or no discussions. It was that there was no agreement. This is halfway toward admitting Goldfarb's declaration is true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 06:52 PM EDT
SCO had to know that these details would come out in the wash. So why did they
include Baystar in the list? Surely that just made it inevitable, whereas
Baystar doesn't really come in to it without the accusation that IBM interfered.
Was it spite? Hoping to punish Microsoft for not providing further investments?
Or perhaps there were negotiations that didn't work out, and this is the result.
I just don't see the benefit to SCO; they've just sent a message to the
investment community that says 'Hey, you can't trust us either', so it's hard to
imagine any other source giving them a cash infusion. Or maybe they think they
are so trashed already that one more thing doesn't make a difference. Perhaps
it's just another bad judgement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration; section 13
Authored by: tgibson37 on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 07:02 PM EDT
13. SECTION REDACTED. tom

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could Baystar Sue Microsoft and/or Boies?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 07:11 PM EDT
I wonder, after all this, could Baystar sue either Microsoft, and/or BSF?

I know, I know, they really *deserved* to lose this money because they were
stupid, greedy, and lacking any morals or common sense. They unanimously voted
to partake in speculative investments based on a 'gentlemans' agreement with MS
that MS would 'backstop' the investment - which would appear to me to, in an
investment market, should be illegal behavior, because it's basically stock
price manipulation.

Nevertheless, a scam is a scam, and it looks like, to me, that MS, SCO, and BSF
conspired to scam Baystar out of 37 *Million* dollars.

Boies assures the guy that the case is safe, and will be settled quickly, then
refuses to provide evidence to his analysts, and stops returning phone calls.
Meanwhile, most of that $37 Million ended up in *his* pockets. That appears to
my layman's eyes to be crooked thievery to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This just seems too simple
Authored by: Tufty on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 07:15 PM EDT
I find it hard to see how a, presumably, hard nosed investor could get shaken
down so easily. The words candy and baby come to mind. Due diligence? I get a
feeling that there is a lot more behind this.

Tufty


---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Conflict of Interest
Authored by: capt.Hij on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 07:52 PM EDT
I'm wondering now if Mr. Boies will end up a witness in this case, if IBM's motion is denied and SCO gets to proceed with its interference claims. I'd venture a guess that SCO wishes it had never accused IBM of interfering with SCO's business relationship with BayStar.

If it is perceived that the lawyers fail to pursue this avenue to the fullest extent then it might appear they dropped the ball to avoid embarassment of the firm. This could be a conflict of interest because at some point the lawyers will have to decide whether or not it is worth the time and effort to pursue this aspect of the case. It would seem that IBM has Boies et al in a real bind. They can't pursue this without looking bad but can't drop it for that very reason.

It would seem that the Nazgul will ride this evening...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • big ifs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 03:49 AM EDT
The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: davidmay on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 08:53 PM EDT
We also discussed SCO's lawsuit with David Boies from SCO's outside law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Mr. Boies informed me that he believed that IBM would settle the case fairly quickly.

Among other things, it became clear to me that the BayStar investment was used primarily to pay David Boies' law firm.

Hmmm...ethics conflict?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's response...
Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 09:09 PM EDT
Yep; and technically it's all true.
My god but they're awful.

---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 09:15 PM EDT
The Microsoft response is interesting by what it doesn't say.

It doesn't say Goldfarb's declaration is inaccurate. Actually it implies it is
accurate.

It doesn't say there was no discussions or agreements between them and Baystar
or Larry Goldfarb, just that there was no agreement resulting from such
discussions.

It doesn't say there is no relationship between Microsoft and Baystar, just that
such relationship are not financial.

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but there are so many open questions. How
can I avoid looking for loopholes in the text?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Champerty?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 10:06 PM EDT
Mr. Emerson stated that Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit about IBM and the Linux operating system.
Is this not champerty?

Darkside, not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Puzzling section of Declaration
Authored by: sk43 on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 10:17 PM EDT
I am having trouble understanding why Goldfarb make this
statement:

"In the course of my research about SCO, I became concerned that SCO might
be merely a litigation company."

when a casual search through SCO's press releases shows it to be a vibrant,
commercial company. E.G.,

Nov 19, 2002: "SCO Unveils SCO Linux 4, Powered by UnitedLinux"

Feb 28, 2003: "Oracle9i Database and Oracle9i Real Application Clusters Now
Available on UnitedLinux 1.0

Apr 15, 2003: "SCO Ships SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium Processor
Family"

Apr 22, 2003: "UnitedLinux Version 1.0 Supports AMD Opteron Processor-Based
Systems"

Can anyone figure out what his problem was?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 11:15 PM EDT
"Microsoft has no financial relationship with BayStar and never agreed to guarantee any of BayStar's $50 million investment in SCO.

1) "no Financial relationship" just says we didn't give them any money
2) "never agreed to guarantee" says what was never put in writing

But what about wanting to forward the suit???

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: jsusanka on Monday, October 09 2006 @ 11:20 PM EDT
I would like to hear what the doj has to say about all this,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nigerian Scam??
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 12:17 AM EDT
People like Goldfarb will also fall for Nigerian scam....it is really
interesting that he is an Investor!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Different highlights for different eyes
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 12:56 AM EDT
Reading through the comments, it's fascinating to see what different readers spot that are of interest to them, there's so much juicy stuff in this declaration.

For me, paragraph 12 is the fascinating one:

12. Thereafter, I had meetings with David Boies and asked him to provide me the evidence supporting SCO's case against IBM, so that my consultants could analyze the strength of the claims. Mr. Boies promised to provide the evidence but never did. Eventually Mr. Boies stopped returning my calls.


Which says that Boies knew then that SCO had no evidence to support their case.

So far we have no evidence to indicate whether SCO snookered Boies into accepting their case, or whether Boies knew upfront about SCO's lack of evidence, but here we can place a point where Boies knew absolutely that SCO had no eveidence.

Which raises a question for the legally experienced in our midst, at that point, when an attorney realizes there is no evidence, there is no case, what are his obligations to the court and to his client?

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Yesterday's News
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 02:18 AM EDT
This reporter had essentially this story over two years ago.


---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 02:18 AM EDT
The Microsoft reaction is further proof that the opposite of what it claims is
true. Because we know that Microsoft is lying. Actually, Microsoft by its
reaction dealt SCO another blow. They don't know any longer how to run a case
and are clearly panicking. Whatever comes up in their head, no matter how
irrelevant, is now pulled out of the closet to delay the case and not face
justice. IBM on the other hand plays it very cool. But that is easy when you
have ethics and Linux on your side.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle reaction
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 03:54 AM EDT
For those who are interested
"There may have been a conversation between the two and Emerson went to management, who decided they didn't want to do it. There is no evidence of commitment from Microsoft in any way," he said. Internetnews

More comments along the same theme in the article.

I wish the journalist asked Enderle about point no 6 in the Goldfarb declaration:

Sometime in 2003, I was approached by Richard Emerson (Microsoft's senior vice president for corporate development and stratedy) about investing in SCO, a company about which I knew little or nothing at the time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's Statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 05:01 AM EDT
A proper denial would read - 'At no time has anyone at Microsoft discussed, or
agreed to back or underwrite, in writing or otherwise, an investment in SCO with
any representative of Baystar. We welcome competition in the market and our
track record to date demonstrates the strict ethics and morality that Microsoft
employs in all of its business dealings'

That should do it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmmm...
Authored by: N. on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 05:11 AM EDT
Anyone else concerned that Goldfarb is telling us *precisely* what we want to
hear? Probably just me being paranoid, but the lack of mentioning Royal Bank of
Canada is bothering me.

---
N.
(Now almost completely Windows-free)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Hmmm... - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 05:22 AM EDT
    • Hmmm... - Authored by: N. on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 05:32 AM EDT
    • Hmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:48 AM EDT
    • Hmmm... - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:21 AM EDT
      • Hmmm... - Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:09 AM EDT
      • Correction - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 04:40 PM EDT
  • Hmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:31 AM EDT
  • Hmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 09:45 AM EDT
The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: eskild on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 05:14 AM EDT
'BayStar's decision to terminate its relationship with SCO had nothing
whatsoever to do with any communications with or conduct of IBM.'

You could say it was due to IBM not settling but fighting instead!

---
Eskild
Denmark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft statement
Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:22 AM EDT
Talk about dodging the bullet... it's interesting to note what they *don't* say,
rather than what they *do* say:

* They don't deny they set up the deal (by suggesting it to Goldfarb for
instance)
* They don't deny they were involved in the deal
* They don't deny they wanted to promote the SCO vs. IBM case
* They don't deny that the executives Goldfarb mentions really spoke to him
about SCO

So the only thing they really deny is that they said they would guarantee the
deal in some way. Makes you wonder why they even bothered to issue a statement
about it, and I feel they *would* have denied all the above, if they reasonably
*could* have.

What are the legal implications of this declaration in the light of MS's recent
statement? Others have mentioned such terms as tortious interference with IBM's
business - would any of these hold water? It will be more interesting to see
what *IBM's* next move will be. Looks to me like a shot across the bows to MS
from IBM.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it came to light that Darl spoke to someone in MS
*before* they filed against IBM? (I'm not suggesting it will, but it *would* be
a colourful twist!)

Curiouser and curiouser.

-cybervegan

---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Talk about onesided information
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:09 AM EDT
Goldfarb and BayStar get their information from:
- Microsoft
which obviously has an interest in supporting SCOs FUDwar against Linux;
- SCO
which is in dire straits already, lacking resources for what'll obviously
become a lengthy litigation, also they need some money to pay exorbitant
salaries to the management; and
- BSF
who want to get paid by SCO for their costly litigation

So all of them had an interest in BayStars investment in SCO while noone exactly
bothered in SCOs prolonged wellbeing. Also Goldfarb didn't even ask why
Microsoft was so shy of directly investing in SCO and he managed to completely
ignore any public discussion about the SCO cases and the lack of evidence
already apparent.

And this from an otherwise successful and senior fundsmanager? I mean that
leaves only two possibilities: either those fundsmanagers are all a bunch of
morons that also believe in fairy tales, or Goldfarb told a big fat lie and
Microsoft *did* compensate either BayStar or Goldfarb personally for what was
otherwise a foreseeably bad business decision.

What i think is that BayStar got a very sweet deal with Microsoft as a
compensation *and* secured their investment by massively shorting SCO after the
course skyrocketed because of the news about the BayStar investment. *That* is
the kind of safe win-win strategy financial investors would love: SCO and BSF
get their money and Microsoft their FUDwar while in return BayStar gets to play
with SCOs stock price which they can either influence themselves ("BayStar
drops SCO", but not without preparation for the backlash of *that* newsbit)
or are at least well informed about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More to this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:49 AM EDT
This is JUST the declaration which is pretty damaging. What I want to see is
the evidence behind this declaration. If what Goldbarb says is true (which I
have no reason to doubt), then he must have an email trail. Indeed he says
"Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails", therefore
they must have converesed at least some in emails. And if Goldfarb is smart at
all he has these stashed away somewhere.

I'm sure IBM has them, do you think we would every be able to see them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • More to this? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:06 PM EDT
The Goldfarb Declaration - Phone records and e-mails
Authored by: teisu on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 08:54 AM EDT
From #10.
"Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of
my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft."

This sentence points to two possible sources of evidence - on interference by
Microsoft- e-mails and phone records. I doubt very much that IBM has missed this
little gem.
If Mr Emerson really was fired (my reading would imply wrongdoing), wouldn't his
e-mails and phone records be preserved as a possible course of future action
against him by Microsoft?



---
Without risk there is no freedom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

attorney client privilege damaged?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 10:21 AM EDT
Could Boies involvement in raising money damage or limit attorney client
privilege for SCO? If he shared his opinion on settlement, does that open the
door for subpoena of documents related to that strategy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell, Microsoft and Unix
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 10:31 AM EDT
Would Microsoft's statement:

"We paid SCO for licensing rights to ensure IT interoperability for
UNIX migration technology, currently in use in Microsoft Utilities for
UNIX-based Applications."

Be more proof that SCO owes Novell licensing monies. This time from the
purchaser's themselves? And, can it be used by Novell in court?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 11:22 AM EDT
Any chances MS would buy SCO, now that the relation has surfaced? They won't
have a lot to lose (PR damage? - already done; paying IBM at the end of the
litigation?- how mcuh would it be?) and a lot to win (just by keeping FUD alive,
by this or other new litigations vs weaker companies?).

One thing is clear, SCO price is cheap. Not by negotiationg (that would mean SCO
would add a potential of $5B to their book value 8^) ), but thru an hostile
takeover?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Overediting MS Statements Considered Harmful
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 12:02 PM EDT
Thesis: the Microsoft statement suffers from overediting. The second sentence
was added by another author.

Surely someone at Microsoft has the job of thinking about what the company will
say in response to certain events. This release was undoubtedly prepared and
carefuly vetted months ago, in response to the publication of the Anderer memo,
then held against the possibility of further evidence coming to light.

The second sentence, though ("The BayStar declaration confirms...")
seems to have been added more recently, and without as much forethought. It
weakens and undermines the implication that Microsoft would like us to take away
from the first sentence.

Consider "Microsoft ... never agreed to guarantee any of BayStar's $50
million investment in SCO". This means nothing more than "Microsoft
did not sign any black-letter contract with Baystar assuring that Baystar would
not lose money by lending it to SCO."

But by saying this now, Microsoft hopes that the news audience will take it as a
denial of Goldfarb's allegations. The definition of "guarantee" is
carefully left floating, so that the casual reader will take it to mean the same
as what Goldfarb is talking about.

But then the second sentence pins down the definition of "guarantee"
to mean "guarantee in writing". The person who put this in was
thinking about what can be proved or demonstrated; in other words, what someone
can be forced into agreeing to via sound argument. This runs counter to the
intent of the rest of the annuncement, which is planted firmly upon what someone
can be gulled into believing because it is comfortable.

It only goes to show that Microsoft is a big comapny, and some of its employees
are smarter than others.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Anderer up to?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 12:09 PM EDT

And when will we see his deposition on Pacer? I wonder if it corroborates Larry Goldfarb's accounting of the Microsoft-Baystar-Caldera dealings as mentioned.

A frequent topic of discussion on Y!, the subjects of Anderer's connections with Microsoft and departure as CTO of Realm Systems last year stirred up the ire of pathetic_geeks. Nevada corporation commission documents show he remained as director, though in July 2006, he indicates he was no longer board member of Realm or Forum Systems, two GMG Capital Partner portfolio companies.

Around the same time a patent application for a "Mobility Device Platform" was updated at WIPO to include him as a co-inventor, along with the previously listed Rick White and Peter Bookman. The corresponding US patent application shows no change. A supporting document filed with WIPO at the same time, US60/641,806 contains another partially redacted document called "Realm Intellectual Property Portfolio Background and Synopsis of Realm IP Assets" and is labeled Realm Confidential. The authors are Bruce Beachman and Tim Hill, who are also listed in a few Microsoft patent applications as co-inventors.

Whether co-inventor status for Anderer is a lovely parting gift, or the filing precipitated his board member departures remains to be seen.

Realm Systems, as of late, is a troubled company. A disgruntled former employee recently blogged at blacktrunk.blogspot.com there was trouble making payroll, and half the staff were laid off. A recent cash infusion from unidentified sources has allowed continued operations, but apparently disturbed previous investors because it diluted their stake. Co-founder Peter Bookman, has confirmed in projectblackdog forums he's no longer executive VP of sales and marketing. CEO Rick White perhaps needs to add former to his title, because of his departure as a venture partner at GMG Capital. The depth of current involvement of Realm COB Frank Artale, former Microsoft VP, is unclear. His role as VP at Xensource, and other venture interests seem to occupy most of his time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

But who are the Limited Partners?
Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 12:55 PM EDT
If Baystar is like other investment companies, they form investment funds and
manage them. They typically also participate (i.e., invest) in these funds. Each
fund is a Limited Partnership (L.P.) with one general partner
("Baystar" in this case) and one or more limited partners. The limited
partners are typically institutions or wealthy individuals. From the
Declaration:

"2. I am one of the founders and managing members of BayStar Capital
Management, LLC ("BayStar"). I have served as a managing member of
BayStar since 1998. BayStar is the sole general partner of BayStar Capital II,
L.P. (the "Fund"), an investment fund formed in 2001."

Also from the declaration:
"13. REDACTED"

The only reason I can think of that Goldfarb would invest $50M of (mostly) other
peoples' money on oral assurance and advice, would be if the advice came from
one of the limited partners who seemed to speak for the majority of of the money
in the fund.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who made up the partnership?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 01:21 PM EDT
BayStar accepted funds from investors and invested the money in various risky
venture capital deals. BayStar did not work like a mutual fund where every
investor has an equal share in each BayStar investment. BayStar worked as a
pyramid of limited liability partnerships. BayStar invested each partnership
into one or a few venture capital deals.

It would be very interesting to know who invested in the BayStar partnership
which invested in SCO. Actually, when BayStar and SCO had their falling out
BayStar ended up owning more than 10% of SCO. At that point BayStar was legally
required to report the names of the partnership investors to the SEC since the
BayStar clients were indirect owners of more than 10% of SCO. BayStar filed the
required SEC reports but did not include the names of the actual indirect
owners.

----------------------
Steve Stites

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typical Microsoft Tactics
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 02:46 PM EDT
Reminds me of the browser wars... Microsoft told Netscape they would give them
details on Windows 95 APIs so Netscape could have a new browser version that
took advantage of them. As the months rolled on though, Microsoft made it clear
they wanted a 'partner' that wouldn't compete in several areas they were
interested in. I think they wanted Netscape to create a platform, but let
Microsoft handle the back-end and services. Eventually they stopped returning
Netscape's calls and stonewalled until after Windows 95 came out and they had
Internet Explorer ready.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let us not forget Silver Lake Partners, Brian Skiba and other "investors" and "advisors" who ran
Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 03:05 PM EDT
up the the stock price, allowing SCO to do the Baystar/RBC deal at a
significantly higher price than they otherwise would have gotten.

It's hard to split out the effects of Darl's bluster fromt he effects of some of
the large funds that came into the stock, from Brian Skiba's BS (which amounted
to this - )

"Here, I'll run up your stock price so please let me profit from doing the
PIPE deal for you.


IMHO, MS/Gates/Ballmer had a lot more to do with funding SCO than we even know
now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Business Review - "The Goldfarb declaration - some questions for Microsoft"
Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 04:08 PM EDT

Following the declaration, and Microsoft's non-denial denial response, the following questions have been sent to Microsoft. We will publish a response as soon as we get one.

1. Given that Richard Emerson reported directly to Steve Ballmer, at what point was Mr Ballmer aware that Mr Emerson was in conversation with BayStar about its potential investment in SCO?.....

6. Does Microsoft have any relationship, financial or otherwise, with any of the following investors in SCO Group?

· Ralph Yarro
· Darcy Mott
· Amtrust International Insurance
· Chesapeake Partners
· Eton Park Capital Management.....
Business Review Online



What are the chances of any reply?

Has Microsoft make a tactical error by issueing a statement on the Goldfarb testimony?

Silence on the Anderer, Emerson and Goldfarb M$ connections has served to keep some distance between themselves and SCOG over the last 3 years.

Has the Microsoft statement publicly drawn them into the SCOG saga in a way in which they weren't before?

Which is worse? Rumour and speculation or rumour and speculation enhanced by an incomplete denial leading to further questions?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hans Reiser is arrested: susp. murder
Authored by: jog on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:03 PM EDT
10-10-06 @ 11:30am PDT
jog

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 06:17 PM EDT
IANAL, but isnt there some sort of law that forbids funding of lawsuits, i.e.
paying people to file suit? I seem to recall that there is, even if the 'fundee'
might have a case. If the fundee has no case, but you just want to fund them as
a form of 'legal chill' blackmail, I would think that would be even more
verboten.

If such is indeed the case, MS's actions (and Baystar's too maybe) would seem to
come awfully close to violating said statute if it exists. IF IBM wins this on
Summary Judgement (i.e. SCO had no vestige of a case) then Baystar, and MS,
could be in some trouble should anyone decide to pursue this.
pgmer6809

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well said, Mr Goldfarb!
Authored by: doughnuts_lover on Tuesday, October 10 2006 @ 07:40 PM EDT
Quoting Baystar's Mr. Goldfarb:

"If you invest in a shady management team, you should expect that bad things may happen. Sometimes people get what they deserve."

Source: Interview with Baystar's general partner Larry Goldfarb, published October 1, 2003. (p.3, last sentence)

[ Reply to This | # ]

$86m-50=$36m unaccounted for?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 02:02 AM EDT
Hmmm. That email from Anderer said that MS raised $86m. The declaration and
other evidence point to $50 million of financing.

So how about the other $36m? Where did it come from? Is the licensing purchase
considered "lawsuit funds"?

Hmmm.

I wonder.

Scott

[ Reply to This | # ]

Micrisoft deposition
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 04:59 AM EDT
Anyone know who, if anyone, turned up for the deposition of Microsoft about its
relationship with SCO and BayStar etc? That declaration should make interesting
reading.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Att'y obligations
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11 2006 @ 09:18 AM EDT
"He tells his clients to shut up, listen, and do what he tells them lest
they want to make it easy to take their houses or send them to jail. They are
also covering their assets since they are likely to sue each other. "

hehe.

I'm thinking this was about the time we quit hearing from Darl. :-)

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 12 2006 @ 12:53 PM EDT
since goldfarb sworn to his statement lets get some execs from microsoft up on
the stand and see if they will swear to statements that make goldfarb a
perjurer. For some reason I just don't see that happening. seems to me
microsoft is untouchable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )