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.'"
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?
You heard incorrectly. Microsoft owned a portion of the original SCO many years ago before Caldera bought it, but they sold it.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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
[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.
"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 $699 now?
Oh, and can anyone recommend another good Canadian bank now? I suddenly don't have as much confidence in my current one's future with business decisions like this!
-Pat
There are two investors; BayStar Capital is the other one, and they are an investment house. Even if you could get a list of BayStar's investors, no doubt those are also investment houses, and trying to track down any M$ 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
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