Slashdot Mirror

Funny how they've got all that money for what they did

Yes, because we all know that having money is the sole determining factor of competancy and honesty.

Evidence? Proof?

I've seen a lot of people say that as if it were accepted fact, but I don't recall ever seeing any proof.

SCO license purchases don't count.

I realise that Microsoft can't be unhappy about SCO's actions, but surely they have more productive things they could spend money on than funding a competitor's doomed legal adventures...

That pretty much covers all of SCO's funding in this venture. If you run down the standard checklist:

• Microsoft has the means to fund SCO's FUD
• Microsoft has the motive to fund SCO's FUD
• Microsoft has the oportunity to fund SCO's FUD
• To the extent that there is any evidence at all about the source of SCO's funding, in each case the ultimate source appears to be Microsoft.

-- MarkusQ

Actually they are in California, so it should be "we'll see you in court, dude." You are probably thinking of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) that originally was apart of the $50m cash infusion that backed out a while ago when Baystar bought them out.

So let me get this straight...BayStar has bought up RBC's investment in SCO and wants SCO to get out of every other business it's in and focus on it's pending lawsuits? Doesn't that strike anybody as odd?

No, because Baystar's largest investor is owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and their eighth largest investor is Microsoft. This should surprise no one.

It seems that RBC's investment motto is "Buy high, sell low". Just like Baystar's investment strategy, it seems upside down!

Wonder if their webmaster's making fun of them. In addition the funny image, of course netcraft confirms baystar's running BSD. Does that mean they're dead?

Wonder if their webmaster's making fun of them. In addition the funny image, of course netcraft confirms baystar's running BSD. Does that mean they're dead?

Companies to include your in boycott list

CNN is carrying a story about one of the new investors in SCO, BayStar Capital Management, which wants SCO to "shake up its management and sharpen its focus on the potentially lucrative legal fight" and "spend less money on its Unix products." One has to wonder what BayStar is expecting as a reaction to their being so... blunt.

"Given the connections that Baystar has with MS/Paul Alen et al" No, no, no. People keep reciting this same bit of misreading. The original Paul Allen assertion was based on folks not reading the large type header of a graph in a pdf white paper from Baystar - "Top Ten Investors All PIPES since 1995" - not Baystar PIPEs. This had also been reported incorrectly by wired online, has never been corrected by them, and has taken on a life of its own as an urban legend.

Yep, you are missing something.

Like, why was Microsoft talking to anyone about funding for TSG? How can a monopoly justify interfering in any way attacks on possible competitors?

Like, what difference does it make if the executive was not BG or SB? Those are not the only executives at MSFT, and they are not the only executives capable of committing MSFT to some kind of deal with BayStar.

Like, according to a link posted somewhere above (this one) Microsoft was one of the ten top investors in BayStar, so any investment by BayStar MAY have a Microsoft thumbprint on it.

Like "A Microsoft spokesman says that the company has no "direct or indirect" financial relations with BayStar" despite the pdf file linked to above found on BayStar's web site.

Nice shot at trolling, but better luck next time...

I didn't fully read the Newsforge article (and I didn't see anything stating that Vulcan wasn't an investor), but how can that possibly be true? According to Baystar's own website Vulcan Ventures is the largest investor in Baystar (in 2002, at least). I seriously doubt they'd "confirm" that Vulcan is not an investor when their website specifically states otherwise.

Here is the White Paper from their site

The above poster is totally correct. Here is a link to the PDF file from Baystar's own website. On page 3 of this there is a chart showing the top ten investors in Baystar. Number one on this chart is Vulcan Ventures which has 1.8 billion dollars invested in Baystar!!!!

Two points. Is this real, and is the dollar figure correct?

If it's real, consider the source. The e-mail was not widely distributed so did someone raid an inbox for this? Was it printed out and left on the printer? In either case, the source must be close to the principals. Why hasn't more information been forthcoming from this source? Certainly this source would have been able to pick up things like, oh, what the infringing code was, who SCO is planning on suing...

Let's say the e-mail is authentic. Consider the $86M figure. From the memo:

Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar.

The poster (and many many of those leaving comments) seem to assume MS gave SCO $86M. If you read the memo, clearly that's not the case. It says MS has brought in that money, including Baystar. From the commentary, we know that Baystar provided at least $50M. MS just referred SCO to Baystar.

Take a look at Baystar's site. They invest in many companies, not all tech related. If you read the Baystar news section, you'll see this article that shows Baystar is not letting SCO have free rein and is interested in protecting its investment.

Bottom line: MS is not funnelling money to SCO via Baystar. MS introduced them but Baystar made the decision to fund, based on the best interest of its investors. Of course, the way Raymond spins it is, "If not for Microsoft, SCO would be at least $15 million in debt today." No, if not for Baystar. Sure, MS introduced them but you may as well say, "If not for the mothers of Baystar's founders giving birth to those founders..." A lot of things came together for SCO to secure the funding.

It's a lot less ominous than the excitable posters here seem to think, or certainly Raymond:

There you have it. A hundred million funnelled from Microsoft to SCO

Nonsense.

Two points. Is this real, and is the dollar figure correct?

If it's real, consider the source. The e-mail was not widely distributed so did someone raid an inbox for this? Was it printed out and left on the printer? In either case, the source must be close to the principals. Why hasn't more information been forthcoming from this source? Certainly this source would have been able to pick up things like, oh, what the infringing code was, who SCO is planning on suing...

Let's say the e-mail is authentic. Consider the $86M figure. From the memo:

Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar.

The poster (and many many of those leaving comments) seem to assume MS gave SCO $86M. If you read the memo, clearly that's not the case. It says MS has brought in that money, including Baystar. From the commentary, we know that Baystar provided at least $50M. MS just referred SCO to Baystar.

Take a look at Baystar's site. They invest in many companies, not all tech related. If you read the Baystar news section, you'll see this article that shows Baystar is not letting SCO have free rein and is interested in protecting its investment.

Bottom line: MS is not funnelling money to SCO via Baystar. MS introduced them but Baystar made the decision to fund, based on the best interest of its investors. Of course, the way Raymond spins it is, "If not for Microsoft, SCO would be at least $15 million in debt today." No, if not for Baystar. Sure, MS introduced them but you may as well say, "If not for the mothers of Baystar's founders giving birth to those founders..." A lot of things came together for SCO to secure the funding.

It's a lot less ominous than the excitable posters here seem to think, or certainly Raymond:

There you have it. A hundred million funnelled from Microsoft to SCO

Nonsense.

I take it Baystar is this bunch of vulture capitalists?

Sure thing. It's on page three of this white paper-- the same page, incidentally, where they list as one of the advantages of their PIPEs "the ability to conduct transactions confidentially".

I hit Baystar and have yet to find anything about Paul Allen.

Ah. You do know that Vulcan Ventures == Paul Allen, right?

-- MarkusQ

Usually when someone on slashdot makes a claim like that, they provide a link. I hit Baystar and have yet to find anything about Paul Allen. That doesn't mean it's not there, but you could have provided proof of that claim fairly easily.

Paul Allen has long made it clear that he does his own thing, and MS doesn't not follow (nor vice versa). He has six foundations of his own, owns his own investment firm (Vulcan), is a lobbyist, and owns the Seahawks.

However, he left MS in 1983 (battling Hodgekins disease), and now owns Marcus Cable, Hollywood Entertainment, and Asymetrix Learning Systems.

Any other non MS employees you'd like to point out that invest in BayStar?

And even if the 60% of the money that didn't come from Baystar came through RBC, that doesn't mean it didn't start out the day in Redmond.

-- MarkusQ

Even if you could get a list of BayStar's investors, no doubt those are also investment houses, and trying to track down any M$ investment would take a lot of poking. Especially if they are private, not public, companies ...

It doesn't take much poking at all: From yesterday's /. discussion, way2trivial found this little gem. Microsoft and Paul Allen's Vulcan Capital are BayStar's number nine and number one investors, respectively (see page three of the PDF).

Oh what a tangled web we weave. It will be interesting to see who else turns up as a TSG investor, even indirectly.

googling site:www.baystarcapital.com microsoft gave me two links... the second (here) had what you're referring to. The graph shows that MSFT invested about $.6 billion in BayStar since 1995.

NOTE: the 2.9 million shares is just an estimate based on scox's share price over the last 5 days. If scox share price falls to $8.50/share; then scox will owe baystar almost 6 million shares.

I think this is an error, the press release on BayStar's page says the conversion price is fixed.

We have no way of knowing whether Vulcan or Microsoft were in this particular deal, but it still smells.

Here is something interesting to check out.
One of Baystars products is Called a PIPE Transaction and guess who is one of its TOP TEN INVESTORS Baystar White Pages

Here is something interesting to check out.
One of Baystars products is Called a PIPE Transaction and guess who is one of its TOP TEN INVESTORS
Baystar White Pages

BayStar Capital is pleased to announce the closing of a $50 million investment in The SCO Group, Inc. The investment in SCO, led by BayStar, was structured as a private placement of non-voting Series A Convertible Preferred Shares, convertible into common equity at a fixed conversion price of $16.93 per share, which was the average closing bid price for the Company's common stock for the five trading days prior to and including the date of closing. Upon conversion, the investors will own an aggregate of 2,953,000 shares of SCO common stock representing 17.5% of the company's outstanding shares.

The SCO Group, Inc. is a provider of reliable, cost-effective UNIX operating systems and software products and solutions to small and medium-sized business markets. SCO solutions include UNIX platforms, messaging, authentication, e-business tools, and services that include technical support, education, consulting, and solution provider support programs. The Company's SCOsource division was formed in January 2003 to review and enforce its UNIX intellectual property rights. It is also developing Web-based applications, products, and services to facilitate connections to the Internet for its customers. SCO has a worldwide presence with representation in 82 countries. This infrastructure enables SCO to provide local support and dependable solutions to businesses around the world. Additionally, SCO has a channel of more than 11,000 solution providers, a developer network of nearly 8,000, thousands of direct account customers, and an installed base of more than two million systems. For additional information visit the SCO Group, Inc. Website at www.sco.com.

BayStar Capital is a private equity crossover fund that makes direct investments in late stage privately held companies and small to medium capitalization publicly traded companies across all sectors.

PDF Format

Capital needs of $5 to $50 million are targeted towards acquisitions, product development, marketing or sales expansion, or as a bridge to a public offering.

The closest SCO gets to anything on that list is sales expansion, but that's not really what sales expansion means.

The problem with your link is that there is a space in it that should not be there. You can click on the correct link below:

Microsoft is listed in a barchart on page 3 of the PDF file. I have not yet read the article, it will be interesting to see what it says. I will reserve judgement until then, but I am suspicious.

This one is. Read up on their CTO .

They have a staff of nine, only one of whom (the managing director, transactions) has any real experience relevant to assessing a company like this.

The portfolio manager (the key person) seems to have a background as some sort of quantitative analyst: which means he is probably very bright andat mathematical modelling, but does not understand anything about a business other than numbers (especailly stats).

I spent most of the last few eyars working as an analyst (investment not ssytems!) so I know how to judge these guys. Incidentally the posters suggesting that Baystar are planning to short SCO have not done their maths.

This one is. Read up on their CTO .

They have a staff of nine, only one of whom (the managing director, transactions) has any real experience relevant to assessing a company like this.

The portfolio manager (the key person) seems to have a background as some sort of quantitative analyst: which means he is probably very bright andat mathematical modelling, but does not understand anything about a business other than numbers (especailly stats).

I spent most of the last few eyars working as an analyst (investment not ssytems!) so I know how to judge these guys. Incidentally the posters suggesting that Baystar are planning to short SCO have not done their maths.

Who controls BayStar?

I doubt microsoft. While, according to this they are in the top ten money movers at about 500 million, that pales in comparison to Vulcan Ventures ~1.7 billion.

Now baystar, being an investment firm, may be acting on behalf of microst in investing thier money, but Microsfot hardly controls them. The accusation could be true for any investment firm that purchases stock.

Most likely this is an investment firm planning to sell short and make a quick buck without a big amount of risk. Had this really been microsoft or baystar attempting to give SCO the funding to pursue a legal attack on linux 50 million is peanuts.

sorry
try this
if that doesn't work, go to google, type in "baystar capital microsoft" it is the PDF link that is for me third down the page.. once the PDF opens, search for microsoft. since october 2002, it looks like they've put 500 million into baystar deals.

Here.

See page 3: Top ten investors in BayStar:

Microsoft Corporation is listed as having about a half billion dollars invested.

Well there's no proof, as you correctly pointed out. However, it is interesting to note that Baystar Capital claims (page 3) Microsoft as one of their top 10 investors in PIPE's (Private Investments in Public Equities). The investment in question is a PIPE, by the way. It may be a coincidence, but it would certainly be an interesting coincidence.

Yes, it's true.

Speaks volumes for their business acumen, doesn't it? I think these people are trying to make a quick buck and don't know what they have gotten themselves into.

I wouldn't be hasty in making some kind of conspiracy theory out of this.