Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Behind SCO Cash Investment?
An anonymous reader writes "eWEEK has got a story up suggesting Microsoft may be behind yesterday's $50mil cash investment in SCO. 'As an investment firm, BayStar leads, creates and participates in a number of PIPEs (Private Investments in Public Equity). Many of these deals involve investment money from other companies, including Microsoft.'"
All it was is the other day Bill was cleaning out his loose pocket change and these VC bums happened to walk by at the right time.
The MAN is keeping linux down...
well making a feeble attempt to anyway.
AFAK, I have also heard that microsoft owned a decent portion of SCO *before* the who IP Fiasco started?
could this be a conspiracy?
-H
--- #@$DF@#2%@^%3^&*$%FRHG%%[NO CARRIER]
But Bob McGrath, a spokesman for BayStar, disputed that claim...
You mean Bob, of all people, is involved in this? Shameful! What kind of message does this send to children?
So... who *DIDN'T* see this coming 50 miles away?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Even for that greedy lot, I think that would be a little risky. If someone could produce real evidence of Microsoft's fingers on that one, it would be a severe legal bow.
Then again, I do hope this is true, and someone, somewho, will be able to get his hands on some irrefutable evidence.
morcego
Makes sense... $50m is chickenfeed to MS... heck, I bet they'd pay 20 times that out if they could neutralise the Linux threat.
They've neutralised just about every other threat so far...
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
It's all a conspiracy created by Bill gates to debunk Linux! Those silly redmond bastards, thinking they can stop linux with a mere 50 mill.
The only REAL threat to linux is from Soviet Russia...
*takes of tin hat*
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
I wouldn't be surprised if the investment came from Microsoft. SCO potentially has a concrete detriment to Linux, as opposed to the FUD that Microsoft was limited to.
It's just more fuel for the fire. SCO is probably doing better at making Linux look bad than Microsoft ever could.
-kidlinux.
Does that make $100mil to SCO from Microsoft?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It probably is. Other than an extreme gambler who in their right mind would invest $50 million in a company that is in the mist of a massive legal wrangle with IBM? This is n't the dot com era and $50 million is still a significant amount of money unless you're someone like erm, Microsoft maybe? Unfortunately like the article states the likelyhood of finding out who is behind the investment is practically non existant.
Microsoft has nothing to do with this. It's the Royal Bank of Canada. Come on, that information was widely published today.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Aren't they already a major stockholder in SCO, since not long before they licensed Unix, the whole shebang, from SCO? For that matter, why would Microsoft, a company not often known for noticing that companies have rights, ever make a show of shelling out money to small dying recently-purchased companies over then-obscure licensing of questionable legal standing? I do not say MS is involved in this... it's risky as hell for a company of their standing, and doesn't quite fit their profile. But there's plenty of ammo for people who are already suspicious of the folks up in Redmond.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
I would surely trust this guy with his opinions on operating systems market. After all, he has five published books.
"SCO spokesman Blake Stowell echoed those sentiments, telling eWeek on Friday that Microsoft was not an investor in SCO through this deal. "There are only two investors in this deal: BayStar Capital and the Royal Bank of Canada."
Thanks for the info eweek, I was about to open a bank account there.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Honey I give you $50 million so you
can spread fud and make windoze look good.
If you can confuse the market then I hope windoze 2003 will get some deployment.
Let me do to you all nite long McBride.
It was the billionaire on the grassy knoll!
--
I wouldn't put anything past Microsoft, but this article doesn't provide any strong evidence that MS is really behind this particular cash infusion. And who needs a conspiracy theory about MS sneaking indirect funding to SCO when MS has been blatantly shoveling money to SCO all year? MS gave SCO 8 million in the first quarter, then 5 million in the second. The just-released SCO 8K states that Microsoft just paid them Another 8 million dollars! That is a grand total of $21 million MS has paid this year for vague "expanded licensing rights with respect to SCO's UNIX source code."
Whether this alleged BayStar/Microsoft link is true or not, it is already crystal clear that Microsoft has been directly paying SCO to conduct this underhanded attack on Linux! Sun certainly appears to be doing the same thing.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner
Microsoft, supporting a company that is targeting their #1 enemy? Possibly damaging the reputation of the major force capable of deposing them from their perch as the #1 OS providor?
No, I just can't believe it, Microsoft wouldn't do anything like that, would they?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Something fishy is going on here. Who in their right mind would invest in SCO?
McGrath, a spokesman for BayStar stated, "I think people will try and come to the conclusion that Microsoft is somehow involved in this deal, but I can tell you with great certainty that Microsoft was not involved with this investment,"
McGrath also added, "It is also a certainty that penis size does not matter to women, the 1969 moon landing was faked, Jimmy Hoffa is currently employed as a sushi chef in Boca Raton, Ben and J-Lo's marriage will last forever, and George W. Bush is a member of MENSA."
//donate to IBM.//
Yes. Hurry. Just pennies a day, less than the price of a cup of coffee. Give all you can to this poor, defenseless, huge corporation.
Very suprised that RBC, a rather large, staunch, old and respectable banking establishment would associate itself with such a disputable situation. Then again if Someone needed a BIG favour....?
There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth. ~John Kenneth Galbraith
BALMER! Toss them what ever change you find behind the couch.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
[Y]ou shouldn't take slashdot seriously for financial news or advice.
You're right. You shouldn't use us for such advice. You should listen to us for advice on code issues. And based on this advice, we can tell you that SCO is full of crap.
I also respect your right to believe in salvation through corporation. It's just that most of us here do not.
Also, if you have a gargantuan trying to kill you---one who has a history of obliterating competition through less-than-licit means---such as Microsoft, you'd be paranoid, scared, and hateful too! After all, we're just humans.
I am thinking of writing an email to the SEC about all of this insider pump dump nonsense.
I am really wondering what the SEC is doing if anything about any of this.
All of this stuff with SCO and now this company is so borderline MAFIA - oso that something needs to be done.
A public statement by the SEC that they are monitoring all of this activity with SCO would be a good start.
Anyone else agree ?
MS has been very open about what they are doing to Linux. The fund "reasearch" that is a total joke. But it always has MS's name attached. Likewise, when MS first funded SCO, they did it out in the open. They made a big deal about it. It is almost certain that MS did not fund this.
Instead, it has to be some group that is trying hide their involvement. There is no way that Baystar simply invested into SCO. Instead, it is a group that is trying to pump/dump or needs to hide its' involvment due to probable repercussions.
My guess is that it is either Canopy or Sun.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The VA Linux graph looks like EVERY OTHER TECH STOCK from the same time period. Had absolutely nothing to do with VA and everything to do with idiot investors buying ANYTHING. All you had to do was plunk down a business plan with a swag at $PROFIT somewhere in it, and it sold.
All that the SCO's stock price rise proves is, once again, idiot investors will buy ANYTHING.
No, Microsoft isn't necessarily the puppet master. Their track record speaks for itself, though. And, it's more fun to have them to blame...
"There are only two investors in this deal: BayStar Capital and the Royal Bank of Canada."
:-(
That's my bank
Does that mean I don't have to pay the full $699 now?
Oh, and can anyone recommend another good Canadian bank now? I suddenly don't have as much confidence in my current one's future with business decisions like this!
-Pat
More proof that Pave Low should DTFR (Do The Fucking Research). Did you know that Microsoft is one of Baystar's top 10 investors? Don't take my word for it, do some research on Baystar's own website.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I'm not sure about the global warming but my friend got STD from using Mircosoft Branded condoms... It was full of holes!
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
There are two investors; BayStar Capital is the other one, and they are an investment house. Even if you could get a list of BayStar's investors, no doubt those are also investment houses, and trying to track down any M$ investment would take a lot of poking. Especially if they are private, not public, companies ...
Look at it this way. Anyone with a brain knows that this $50M is not an investment, because an investment expects a return on investment. You may be able to find a few nutso small time investors who believe every press release they see and buy stock just in case, but those people generally don't have $50M.
The only other reason to spend $50M is to get product in return. All SCO has to offer is its lawsuits against Linux. Now think, who would have use for such a product? So far, two license buyers have shown up, Sun and Microsoft. Sun has already been certified as being immune to the SCO infringement claims. Microsoft just dumped another $8M into SCO for an enhanced license, which is just as useless to them as the previous license purchase.
There may be no proof that Microsoft is behind the $50M, but it looks like a pretty good first approximation.
Infuriate left and right
Well, this should be an interesting bit of commenting from the /. crowd, good for a laugh I suppose, but still, it would be nice to actually see some REASONABLE evidence that MS had ANYTHING to do with this. I know, I know, too much to ask.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
I was still waiting for my new glasses to be ready.
"The difference between pornography and erotica is the lighting" - Woody Allen
I was about halfway through the article, reached the paragraph that read, "But people in the open-source community are far from convinced. They cite the myriad of investment holding and other companies that firms like Microsoft can hide behind when making investments", and I realized I wasn't wearing my AFDB (aka "foil hat" by the masses).
I donned my AFDB and finished the article but now I'm worried. I've seen movies like "Antitrust" and "The Falcon and the Snowman" (the prequel to "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") so I know what this big companies can do. I want to post some information I've recently discovered before something...uh oh...what's that? Let me check...
PAK CHOOIE UNF
I hate to say I told you so but...
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
'Many of these deals involve investment money from other companies, including Microsoft.'
Wow, so a large company invests capital in other companies...that's a truly revolutionary thing they're doing. It's definately all the evidence you need to come to the conclusion that they're funding SCO. I'm actually suprised it look a day between the announcement that SCO got $50 million and someone came up with good, solid proof that MS was behind it. Mind you, I'm no fan of SCO by any means, but posting an article substantiated by some guy giving it his best guess is Jayson Blair territory.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Somebodys got his lil tin foil hat stapped down a little to tightly.
Next thing you know, MS will be to blame for the Slashdot crowds ongoing virginity.
Wow! talk about the ultimate conspiracy theory! Mind you, I think this one has some teeth to it! It wouldn't surprise me at least.
-- DuckWing
Plauseable deniability thats what.
When I went to the page at eWeek, the Shockwave Flash ad on the page was from Dell-M$ on how they can save you money on Unix Migration and how you can get a 'Free Business Case Analysis'. Coincidence, or not? You be the judge!
"Flag on the Moon, how did it get there?"
Allegations and suspicions are worthless
No sir, allegations and suspicions lead to investigations. Without allegations and suspicions the only time you could catch a criminal is in the act.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
How does complaining to the SEC get you laid off ?
.
Where is your proof ? I doubt your comments the SEC is not some corrupt organization
Little more info before i would ever believe you.
MS simply have the GNU license declared illegal? It's GOT to be the cheaper route to go...
I know Billy's got a hard-on about this, but WTF?!??!
This entire SCO ordeal is certainly something to be taken seriously, since a win on SCO's end could possibly impede the work of many talented people.
But every now and then, a light flashes, common sense goes out the window, and a glimpse of the image illustrates a complete distortion of reality: Why in the heck is SCO valued on the stock market more than Sun microsystems? Love or hate Sun, they make hardware, have JAVA, Solaris...let's see, global distribution, the possibility of a future (bias creeping in (-: ) At the time of this posting, SCO is around 41, Sun is around 3. So SCO is almost double that of Apple's stock right now.
Give me a break. I could imagine their stock running up, maybe from $1 to $2, but to give value to a company that makes money off the idea of a lawsuit?
I guess it's a given that the stock market is a game of sorts, but if the stock market gives more value to SCO than a Sun or Apple, then what good is it?
I'm afriad I am only familiar with the investor side of things. What does Google lose, for instance, by staying private? Don't they just give themselves raises as they make more money, and they are not subject to all of the crazy analysts that seem to wake up in the morning and decide who is IN and who is OUT?
c'mon... it's expressly denied, and there is no significant supporting evidence. This is the kind of thing that makes ./ers look like zealots.
This was my bank until 2 hours ago when I read this on Groklaw.
I will not support any company that help those sleazeballs so I send transfered ALL my cash to another e-bank
Please do likewise and email them why. Yes I know it's a different arm of RBC but that is their problem no mine.
Help fight continental drift.
we should entertain the idea
They're using their grammar skills there.
...they will be able to release "MS Linux - Caldera".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I mean, MS isn't going to take on IBM. That would be suicide.
Oh, wait...
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Darl said they will get additional $8M from Microsoft this quarter as well.
Good news is that IBM claim Rise of Linux totally Unstoppable.
Help fight continental drift.
think?
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
At the time of this posting, SCO is around 41, Sun is around 3.
I'm assuming you meant 21.
You need to understand that the price of an individual share of stock is meaningless without considering how many shares of stock are outstanding. Look at the market capitalization instead: the market thinks that SCOX is worth $250 million (yes, it's still ridiculous), and that SUNW is worth $11,500 million.
I guess it's a given that the stock market is a game of sorts, but if the stock market gives more value to SCO than a Sun or Apple, then what good is it?
Well, in a bubble like this, it does seem unfair that the market transfers money into the hands of foolish speculators who buy stocks at inflated prices, but remember that the money comes out of the hands of idiots who buy stocks at grotesquely inflated prices. It's at least a slight improvement.
What does Google lose, for instance, by staying private?
The chance to expand their business with the massive piles of cash which an IPO can bring but without all the entanglements that venture capital may require or the low-risk business plan which a bank loan or bond sale would need. In Google's case, they're doing fine with the money they have and there's no market they'd really want to expand into.
AC comments get piped to
OK, this is about as stupid as anything /. has EVER posted. It's pure conspiracy theory, and has been flatly refuted by everyone involved. Hell, the eWeek article only gets by at all by saying, "some in the open source community suspect..."
It's not happening. Get over it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Ok. What man on this planet would buy condoms labeled "Micro" and "Soft"?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
This article is completely pointless. All it says is that the people investing in SCO have dealings with other companies, "including Microsoft." And then the guy from BayStar disputes the claim anyway.
People already postulated this in the last article. It's pure conjecture and is denied by them anyway. Was Slashdot just clamoring for more Microsoft flamebait?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Bill gates is evil here is why
He donates 2 million to India to fight Aids
He donates 50 million to SCO to fight GPL in spreading fud.
There's a thing you have to understand about the stock market, and all it stands for.
A company is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. If a public company had $50 billion in net assets (i.e. cash and real products, subtracting outstanding debt), and had 500 million shares trading publically for $20/share, then their total worth isn't $50 billion--it's $10 billion. It doesn't matter what they make, what their future is, or how much cash they have in their pockets. Unless they go bankrupt, the only valuation is the stock market. It sometimes sucks and often doesn't reflect a company's inherent worthiness, but that's also why the stock market moves.
Also, keep in mind that Sun has a lot more stock out there than SCO. Even with the stupid devaluation of Sun stock, they have far more market value than SCO.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
other than conspiracy theory is that MS would love to see Linux dragged through the mud until 2006 when their new OS is released.
Someone also should tell CNN money that MS delayed the sucessor to XP till 2006 not 2004.
= 9J =
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.
I wish I invested. I don't care if their accusations are meritless; stocks don't raise or fall based on truth.
In the future, when a penny stock starts making loud noises and loud accusations I will invest. What's to lose when the stocks are so low to begin?
"Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."
Hey buddy, you insulting my micro-wave?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Yep, you read that right. From a Yahoo SCOX post:
...
l
SCOX buys MSFT license -- WTF?
by: jqtechworker 10/18/03 12:40 am
Msg: 53640 of 53642
[quote]
Microsoft said in the joint report that it has "taken a number of significant steps to revise substantially" the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program, or MCPP, in response to feedback by the plaintiffs and potential licensees.
The company said that as a result of its efforts, four additional companies have executed MCPP licenses since the July 24 status conference: Cisco Systems Inc. (NasdaqNM:CSCO - News) , Tandberg Television Ltd., Laplink Software Inc. and SCO Group Inc. (NasdaqSC:SCOX - News; SCOX).
[/quote]
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/031017/1856000958_3.htm
I heard that Microsoft recommended use of STD Vectors on the population at large! (or was that in programming... uh who would name a class STD Vector? :)
Not often can you talk about someone literally using Monopoly money.
Help fight continental drift.
Litigation is now a big business with very nice growth potential. Maybe the investors of SCO are cashing into this trend in the American business. American firms can not compete in manufectures, not in software and all of these have been moved oversea. However, Litigation business as a busiess can not be outsourced and all have to be done in the US. As more companies are facing hardtime and going down in the IT industries, we can see a sea of intellecture properties related lawsue for the years to come.
SCO is at the forefront of this new growth trend and it definitely make sense to invest. What if SCO wins the litigation against IBM (remember, this is the same company suing Microsoft with Dr. DOS and won!). Does this track records make SCO management team the new sweetheart of the board of any dying IT company? Before we knew it, Sun will replace Scott McNealy with Darl McBride and every company that has ever used Java would be underfire. Of course, IBM still the target #1.
Yes, and another note for the conspiracy theorists: BayStar does not need Microsoft directing its investments. Believe it or not, there are some companies out there that can make stupid decisions without Microsoft.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
that's why real financial analysts have valuation models of a company using its free cash flow, which help them gauge whether a company is 'cheap' relative to their valuation.
and when other investors, who are only after a bottom line see SCO's stock going up like a rocket, they'll dive in and it'll create a run on SCO stock, pumping it so high that it will start a rally.
In the end MS will have "bought" mainstream acceptance of SCO's slander on Linux by artificially creating a return for the market investors.
Microsoft effectively OWNING Linux simply by progressively changing their name to SCO.
What's the last step? Simple:
Microsoft shelves Linux by making it illegal for anyone to run Linux.
That way MS can keep selling yearly Windows licenses.
Eventually the licenses will be by month.
After that, they'll be like cellular phone minutes.
If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
that after so many companies when under when the internet bubble burst other companies would have learned not to invest in questionable IT companies. Looks like I was wrong.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I put "Santa Cruz Operations" into an anagram generator and got back a four word "PIRATE ZAN, ASS CROUTON" among others, minus the comma. The only two word match was "TANZANIA PROSECUTORS".
Also they are network visible by default (useful) and usually unsecured by default(bad).
The news article admits that Microsoft is an investor in BayStar but denies that Microsoft has anything to do with this particular investment. If that is directly true, then you need some indirectness, and that's what would be hard to uncover.
Infuriate left and right
If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.
Your right. With MS controlling the Linux IP, the "common man" would lose access to Free/Open/NetBSD, ReactOS, OpenBe, GNU/HURD, FreeDos, and all the other countless free OSes out there that aren't Linux. It's all make sense to me now...
This comment could also have read:
Your right. MS will use this to kill Linux. How? Through changing their name from that of the biggest software house in the world to that of the smallest litigation house. Of course. It was so obvious, how could I have missed it? It's not like they'd just buy SCO or something. I mean, that'd be crazy talk. And that's assuming there is any merit to the lawsuit, and that it can prove anything more than that IBM broke a contract, if that.
By this time 2050, after all the lawsuits would be done, MS could easily own Linux. It all makes sense to me now.....
Microsoft Bob, indeed...
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
But Bob McGrath, a spokesman for BayStar, disputed that claim, telling eWeek on Friday that BayStar had examined its records and could find no side-by-side PIPE or other investments that it had participated in along with Microsoft.
... I think it was CIOs. Was it CIOs? ... Yah, I think it was CIOs.... I know they wore suits and spent cash. Probably CIOs.
Which was the first thing after the quoted sections in the article.
And just another few sentences down, we see:
"They invest their own capital as well as put deals together that involve other investors but, again, this specific deal did not include Microsoft," he said.
The only thing we have here that even possibly linking MS to this are people saying "no one would invest this much money in SCO. They eat money like a sweet, delicious candy. It must be MS!"
But does it matter? Let's assume MS is pumping more cash into SCO. Yes, more. Remember, they do have those interesting UNIX licenses. So what. What does this change. How does this suddenly lend any credibility to the SCO case? There are roughly 12 people who believe SCO has a case, and they all work in the same building with Darl McBride.
So MS gets to continue another anti-Linux marketing volley that, like the "viral" campaign from long ago, isn't working. Or do we really need to link to how ~80% of CIOs were not even stuttering in their GNU/Linux adoption plans?
But if MS wants to throw good money after bad, I say let them. If nothing else, I'm sure some investors in MS will have some choice words if 50 million just magically shows up missing.
No!!!!! Surely not!!!!!!!! Microsoft, investing in anti-Linux FUD???? I can't believe it, no, I WON'T believe it. La-la-la-la-I'm not listening.
Not just that but No.1 was apparently Vulcan Capital, Paul Allen's VC company. Yes, that Paul Allen, buddy of Bill.
See my journal, I write things there
Rather, it's "insightful". Let the bank of canada feel how they are compensated for dealing with the terrorists.
:-).
I almost wish I had an account (or other business) there, so I could cancel it
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
If you were sitting on the other side of the fence (take you /. reader hat for a sec), would you call the eWeek article and Slashdot post FUD?
I'm not saying something doesn't smell fishy here, but why not stop the speculation and live by the high standard of proof that we expect from others (say SCO)?
Suspicion is one thing, but backing it up with data and actual proof is another.
At least both eWeek and Slashdot present it as it is: a question. A valid question for sure, but that seems really speculative at this point...
It's well known that MS uses Unix stuff in it's operating systems - the BSD TCP/IP stack for instance.
And these 21$ million might seem much to you but for a company with such huge revenues like MS these are just peanuts.
That's irrelevant. You're trying to mash a bunch of unrelated facts together.
SCO is claiming IP issues with Linux, not BSD. Microsoft used code (which may not even exist in the kernel any more, for all we know) from BSD in the TCP stack. Furthermore, I've yet to hear even any insinuations that the TCP stack contains any infringing code, and find it extremely unlikely.
And these 21$ million might seem much to you but for a company with such huge revenues like MS these are just peanuts. If you finish you education some day and get a job in big business, you'll see that such stuff are really minor contracts.
It's really annoying number of folks on Slashdot like to try to sound sophisticated by pish-poshing large sums of money. Microsoft is *not* in the practice of doing this. At both of the large tech companies I'm familiar with, it's standard procedure to fight almost *anything* WRT IP claims (Intel, for instance, will fight claims that want more than $100K), and as I pointed out above, any claims would be phenomenally tenuous and extremely unlikely to stick. If you're a tech company flush with money and you don't have a policy of fighting any lawsuits aimed at you, you'll be stripped of your money in no time.
A good example is the recent fight between that little company that patented web browser plugins and Microsoft. The patent is pretty straightforward and clearly covers IE -- it's a far more reasonable IP claim than the SCO business. However, Microsoft is fighting it tooth and nail.
Yes, Microsoft is funding SCO. Yes, they are doing it because it's a cost-effective way of fighting Linux.
May we never see th
but remember that the money comes out of the hands of idiots who buy stocks at grotesquely inflated prices. It's at least a slight improvement.
Well...sort of. Remember that not all (actually, I believe the majority of) investments are not direct -- a group, like a mutual fund or an investment bank is managing someone else's money. So you could say that it's the fault of the original fund contributors and they weren't paranoid enough, but I 'm not sure that such an expectation is reasonable.
May we never see th
Now I am not savvy enough to know if this deal SCOX made is a deal with the devil and a classic toxic convert or not, I'm not that knowledgable about these things. I do have no idea why private investors are still buying SCOX though.
Note, all this info comes from the Yahoo SCOX board -- fascinating reading, like the below quote from yoyotogoismyname, who has been one of SCOX's biggest long shrills for several weeks now. Soon as he heard about the $50M investment, he dumped his SCOX stock.
Baystar can send this company to bankruptcy and still demand that SCOX pay it back its $50 million. How is that? If the stock price drops to near zero, Baystar makes out OK since they are short SCOX. Plus they get to be first in line to collect from a bankrupt SCOX after the banks or senior bondholders. If SCOX rises, these guys lose nothing since they got the shares for $16 and change. The convertible shares covers any lost from the short. What is worse is there is a built in arb. These guys get to pocket 20-16.5=3.5 per share* 3 million= $10.5 million, INSTANTLY!!!! PLUS that convert pays an interest amount. FU SCOX!!!!!
To all of us who can see how inevitable SCO's failure in court is, events like this will make it interesting to watch when SCO collapses like a Ponzi scheme.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=sunw. yahoo.com/q?s=scox
http://finance
I did hit a 4 instead of a 2 with regards to the SCO stock, honest mistake. However, Sun microsystems is nowhere near 41. SUNOCO INC is around 41.
So she's behind it it too. Remember how she used to use Linux but went off it a while ago?
Ha! I wonder if Microsoft is behind this too.
"SCO spokesman Blake Stowell echoed those sentiments, telling eWeek on Friday that Microsoft was not a vendor to Royal Bank of Canada through this deal. "There are only two vendors in this deal: SCO and Microsoft." (if you can't tell, I made that up).
Bugs of a feather generally have the same cause.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
As much as the penguin-lover in me would love to jump on the "Microsoft Did It" bandwagon, I think this deal has less to do with improving SCO's situation, and more to do with positioning to capitalize on the carnage as this mess continues to unfold. Afterall, PIPE deals are typically hedge fund investments...so we clearly cannot see the entire picture, but Microsoft's investment just doesn't make sense as a hedge. Whose would?
I'm actually happy to see someone other than SCO's board and management stands to profit from their hyper-inflated stock price. If I only had $50 million, and had thought of it first.
It should be of no supprise that there are those who are against open source for the only reason they might share, that open source helps to remove the
"you need us and we will charge you" mindset.
Consumer choice is the real target of subversion, that is to remove consumer choice. But with open source the ugliness of the proprietary mindset simple didn't sit well enough with those who are ultimatley consumers too, the programmers of Open Source.
Freedom of choice.... That's the bottom line.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
BayStar gets money from M$, so what's the point here? Oh, it's not us, it's the BSA or some other shell.
Well, well, M$ has it's hooks all into that bank. They have been dumb enough to use their software, though they have called in IBM to rescue them with z serries servers. In a few minutes, I might know how heavily those dummies have invested in the M$ ponzi scheme. I wonder if Star Office will faithfully run all of the silly Macros I had to promise to run in order to download this sheet (dasterdly deep link)? Nope and there's no mention of M$ in that sheet either. They sure want you to buy M$ stock, despite a history of overvaluation. For whatever reason Royal Bank of Canada is M$'s bitch.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well, until the chick with the hammer bursts into the room and smashes the giant viewscreen.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
or does it seem like Slashdot is no longer "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters", but instead 'Conspiracies for Nerds, Stuff that Might Matter'. Of course, maybe I just havn't been around long enough....
whois Exodus Comm (NETBLK-EC21-1) .20 .35 .61 .81 .150 .
t ml
:: FFmpeg CVS moved to MPlayerHQ
64.28.64.0 - 64.28.95.255 sites
and
whois on the site names returns Andover.net, whois on the IP's of those sites returns "steenkin' badges" i.e. FBI Hancock's Exodus Comm
Andover.net is stock symbol LNUX, company name
VALinux.VA Linux has bought up a lot of linux
sites. Another alias for that netblock is Open
Source Development Network. Press releases
describing the outage said OSDN technicians were
working on the problem.
Has FBI Exodus bought VA Linux, which is another very troubled company? VA Linux also owns the sourceforge network--no wonder if some SCO-like vasoconstriction then--
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design6/news.h
2003.10.11, Saturday
posted by Gabucino
Due to the continuing degradation of Sourceforge services' quality, the decision was made to move FFmpeg CVS to MPlayerHQ.hu.
MPlayer "oldtimer" users may remember the ages when libavcodec (the codec part of FFmpeg) was developed right inside the MPlayer CVS tree. The development was moved back to the Sourceforge server, so other projects - and the main FFmpeg of course - could take advantage of our developments. But let's get back to our current topic.
The FFmpeg CVS tree on Sourceforge will cease to exist shortly! Other services will stay on SF for now, but it's highly possible we'll move the mailing list too.
WE are committing suicide at the gates!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
$50 million is worth it to them, as a marketing investment.
Remember, this is a company that BANKS $1 billion a month. They make so much money they don't even have a good way to re-invest it in growth for their company, they let it rot in a bank instead.
>This article is completely pointless. All it says is that the people investing in SCO have dealings with other companies, "including Microsoft." And then the guy from BayStar disputes the claim anyway.
Of course Bayview would dispute the claim. Doesn't it seem unusual that Bayview would be doing this with "their own money" with SCO being unprofitable and having such questionable future prospects? Surely with the transactions they're into, they must have more attractive places to invest. This seems a VASTLY more valuable investment for MS, for its FUD value instead of direct profit, as they've previously acknowledged Linux as their biggest threat. 50 million is nothing to Microsoft, and it doesn't seem like it would be hard at all to have padded that much extra in via Bayviews profits handling the deal when MS invested in Roxio (now parent of Napster). Given Microsoft's history of being punished very little even when proven in the wrong, why wouldn't they do something like this? It is completely consistent with their business goals.
Hmmm
"It's well known that MS uses Unix stuff in it's operating systems - the BSD TCP/IP stack for instance"
Are you implying that Microsoft is paying License fees to SCO for its use of BSD code? Or is it the case that you cannot come up with a clearer example of what MS would be paying license fees to SCO for?
< href="http://www.rbc.com/contactus/invrel_email.ht ml">RBC Investor Relations Feedback</a>
I sent them a letter a few seconds ago. I suggest a lot of other people do the same.
We have to make investing in SCO a public relations nightmare.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Goddamnit! Here's the fixed link: RBC Investor Relations
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Paul Allen isn't particularly 'buddy buddy' with Bill. They were in business together many years ago, but Allen lost interest and withdrew from active participation in Microsoft back in the 80's.
Allen is actually more of a computer geek than a businessperson. He's into the PDP-10 and owns an expensive PDP-10 emulator system which he makes available to other PDP enthusiasts.
Allen is the Woz of Microsoft. Gates is the Jobs of Microsoft.
A Good Intro to NetBS
Remember that not all (actually, I believe the majority of) investments are not direct -- a group, like a mutual fund or an investment bank is managing someone else's money.
You're right, particularly in this case. It looks like 10% of SCO (which didn't have a lot of public shares floating around to begin with) is now owned by Royce and Associates and part of their mutual funds; plus there's the $20M they just got from Royal Bank of Canada.
So you could say that it's the fault of the original fund contributors and they weren't paranoid enough, but I 'm not sure that such an expectation is reasonable.
Isn't it? If you give your retirement money to someone else and tell them they can decide how to invest it, you're basically making your future dependent on their capacity for decision making. Surely some paranoia should be called for there.
I believe he showed the graphs at the given times because those were the start points where slashdot people either lauded or panned the company very vocally.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
I found interesting was a quote from the aritcle [http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1356730,00.a sp]
by an un-named source:
Why wouldn't anyone see something as obvious as this?
At my school everyone (even the well informed) are saying 'Linux is in great trouble.' and 'Linux has an invalid license.'.
Thank you
GrimReality
2003-10-18 15:06:03 UTC (2003-10-18 11:06:03 EDT)
Who stands to gain the most from this?
There's your answer.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
You were fine until you wrote this:
It's not happening.
The problem, of course, is that you can't prove a negative. Can you prove that there are no humans living on Jupiter? No. Can you prove that there is no god? No. Can you prove that Iraq has no WMDs? No. Can you prove that Microsoft isn't funding SCO (through this $50M investment)? No.
Stick with the "pony up the evidence" and don't come forth with negative claims.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
You can always get a karma boost by waiting for someone to suggest a conspiracy and then slamming the "tinfoil hat" on their head. As if conspiracies don't happen. "Nothing to see here. Move along."
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
I wonder if this collaborates with my theory that sco is just doing all this to help microsoft out.
because seeing how their tactics are something microsoft would pull, not to mention I said something a while back that sco is prolly gonna try bringing down linux, and themselves, and then get a nice payoff from M$
I wonder if that's what's happening.
"BayView?"
Again, everything you wrote was just hopeful speculation. It "seems" like something Microsoft would do. Meanwhile, BayStar did it, and they just happen to have dealings with Microsoft.
But that translates to a "Microsoft Behind SCO Cash Investment?" headline on Slashdot. The bias that people refuse to see here sickens me.
"Sufferin' succotash."
There is certainly a limit to which direct finance can be given to SCO by Microsoft. Microsoft can't invest in SCO, it can at best buy SCO products at over inflated prices. Indirect mechanisms will be needed to continue to finance SCO through their law suit.
See my journal, I write things there
I didn't have time to RTFA on the original story, and expected the usual knee-jerk "suspect MicroSoft" reaction, since I had it right away my self. It would be fiscally irresponsible for MS to fail to assist any effort to weaken the most popular kernel supporting a GNU environment, and of course they would have to do what they can to hide their involvement. USD50000000 is such a trivial quantity to a big investment house as BayStar, I'll bet there was no specific MS funding involved, and further, that nobody at MS actually suggested this move.
If BS has any clue at all about customer service, they do what they can to make their customers happy, and their history shows that MS would not be dismayed at the idea of discarding USD50000000 to keep an intellectually bankrupt company able to press, and appeal, a groundless exercise in abuse of the judicial system. The amount is so small compared to the benefit to MS that that there's not even much upside to them in it being "Other Peoples Money"tm.
We can rant and rave about this until we're blue in the face, but the fact is, it's legal, whether MS publically presented a check to SCO, passed a briefcase full of cash in a dead drop in a park in Sao Paulo, wired the 50M to Baystar with instructions to invest it in SCO and deny it, or told BS they'd buy them and fire everybody unless they did the investment without further investment from MS. It's not right, and they're going down no matter what they do, but it's legal.
... that the lawsuit is explicitly for kernel version 2.6 and up. Those of us who developed our own brands of Linux on previous kernel versions (myself included, I had 2.4 and messed around so much in the code that I didn't want to go 2.6 when it came around) are competely unaffected.
Knowing that, the worse it does is set us back a kernel version (or about 3-4 years). Sure, it hurts, but it won't sink Linux any more than being years behind the technology curve has ever affected Microsoft.
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
The bias that people refuse to see here sickens me.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. After all, Microsoft has been an upstanding member of the business community, always willing to work with other businesses for the good of the industry and always putting their customers' interests first. They have always put profit second to providing the world with a stable and secure computing environment. They are leading the way to make sure people do not have to worry about possibly infringing someone's digital rights. They are the poster child for Homeland Security! How could anyone have a reason to mistrust this paragon of corporate virtue? The door is over here. Let me show you the way out.
You can dance around the issue all you want with sarcastic rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that Slashdot is biased. Do you think they ever report the myraid of holes reported in my sig? No. But they'll make an entire article out of a speculative article that doesn't actually prove anything.
"Sufferin' succotash."
With a new Mozilla released, is the browser war back?
/.ers may be influencing this poll -- just a little, no?
I'm sticking with Internet Explorer
15.91%
I'm giving Mozilla a second chance
63.63%
The browser war?
20.46%
It looks like
You can dance around the issue all you want with sarcastic rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that Slashdot is biased. Do you think they ever report the myraid of holes reported in my sig? No. But they'll make an entire article out of a speculative article that doesn't actually prove anything.
You're just as biased in favor of Microsoft, so what's your point?
Actually the fact that a site like the one in your sig exists is
a plus, not a detraction from linux. Microsoft's central
repository for the myriad of holes in its OSes is out there
too, they don't report every single one of the holes on that
page either. (Most of them sure, but I patched a whole lot
more holes on some of clients machines this week than
were mentioned on slashdot.)
As far as dancing around issues goes, your posting history
shows a bit of a Fred Astaire routine as well...
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
The CIBC Visa site won't let me use Mozilla, even though my BMO Mastercard and Credit Union have no problem with it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
They tend to be less dicky about things. Granted, in recent years, the one I use has started to have to charge for things like usinc non-Credit Union ATMs. This is because the other banks will charge the Credit Union per transaction.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
It is a risky investment, however... They hold DEBIT, and if SCO goes bankrupt they and any other debit holders wind up owning all their assets. If they don't win their lawsuit their bankrupt.... They may infact have some ideas as to how to use unix to make some more money that SCO is able to do, $50 million for a decent shot at being able to own unix may be something their willing to do. If they do win, then they have a good shot at have a big part of a huge cashpile. Anything besides a weak settling of the case would look pretty good to these new investors. If you can stand the risk, not such a bad deal to be in.
Your money.
But I didn't. They signed up SCO Group as a "licensee" under section III.E of the antitrust settlement, and only one day before their compliance report. The only other licensees were the ones who had previously held a license. They needed a "commercial licensee" to help prove their case that they are "complying" with the settlement. Of course, compliance with a slap on the wrist "Bad! Bad Micosoft!" is not that much of a real punishment anyway.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
Bush cannot be re-elected. That would imply that he was elected before. He wasn't. He became president because of a lawsuit.
When Microsoft first bought a Unix license from SCO at the start of this whole thing everyone knew it was just funding to help them file suit with IBM. So just is just another cash investment of SCO can continue to make itself look a fool, give bad press to IBM, Linux, and all other Unixes as a whole, and to make Microsoft look like the most stable and dependable Business OS out in the market.
I will say this though. I believe IBM and the Open Source Community is in the right, but all this would go away if IBM or even SUN would just by SCO as a whole. Sometime you have to weight if its better to be right or if you can, stopping the bleeding. Even if this does go to trial, there isn't anything, even the Unix license, that is going to make up for all this bad press AIX, IBM, Linux, and Unix will have to suffer through.
Just my opinion though.
And that's what I think.
You can dance around the issue all you want with sarcastic rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that Slashdot is biased.
Well, of course it's biased. Slashdot is, or was apparently, a *nix-centric site. Isn't there a MS fanboy site where you guys can go and reaffirm your gratitiude for assimilation, or is Bill paying you extra for proselytzing on Slashdot during your lunch hour?
I don't know, but when someone generalizes me into a stereotype, I just grin with satisfaction that they have nothing to offer in the way of discussion and have resorted to personal attacks to distance me from their views.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I don't know, but when someone generalizes me into a stereotype, I just grin with satisfaction that they have nothing to offer in the way of discussion and have resorted to personal attacks to distance me from their views.
Umm, right, whatever. Seriously, psychobabble aside, having read far too many of your posts, it's hardly a personal attack; it's a matter of record here. Like an old vinyl LP with a scratch, you regurgitate your claims over and over no matter how many times you've been refuted by any number of slashbots. You seem to be a glutton for punishment. Have you ever considered setting up a site for people with views similar to your own instead of constantly trolling Slashdot?
This article is about M$FT is about them offering to license their server software to satisfy the US DoJ. Releveant to the SCO situation is that SCO is one of the "at least 8" companies that have bought licenses. In fact, its a little ambiguous, but it appears that SCO is one of "Four firms...signed up in the last three months..." Given that M$FT bought a license from SCO for their software during that period, the timing looks a little coincidental. I wonder how much SCO paid for their license?
i cl e.asp?guid={FE91734E-84B8-490D-83EA-5AB1591067D4}& siteid=mktw&dist=nbs&symb=
First I'd heard of it...is it already well known?
be2
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/newsart
Karma: NaN
Find your local credit union. They are like the way my parents always talk about "how it use to be".