Slashdot Mirror
BayStar Interviewed Regarding SCO Investment
Gonzo_Warrior writes "BayStar's managing partner explains what led him to 'ask' SCO for their money back. In this article, Lawrence Goldfarb describes '...the wayward corporate behavior on SCO's part' that led him to reevaluate BayStar's position. In a letter to SCO last week, BayStar claimed that '...SCO's behavior violated provisions of the investment agreement and that BayStar's convertible preferred stock be redeemed.' The article notes that since its founding in 1998, BayStar has never before asked a company for its money back." CNet has a story based on talking to a BayStar spokesdrone.
SCO's stock price, which fell 38 cents yesterday to $6.80 a share, has dropped 30 percent since last Thursday, the day BayStar sent its redemption letter.
.. but now it's at 7.96. That's why I'm a geek and not a Wall Street suit, I can't see any logic in the stock market. Isn't this NYTimes article more bad news for SCO?
Here's another article about BayStar Confirms Microsoft Connection to SCO Investment.
Evil M$.
It's very, very non-refundable.
Sco, Sun, Cisco and all the rest are doomed.
They'll all be replaced by cheap P-Boxes running Linux or, when we smarten up, OpenSBD.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
All the way back to 1998, a whole six years ago. Now there's history for you. Almost dynastic in its scope..
Cheers,
Ian
It sounds to me that Baystar is unhappy with the way SCO has been doing things and will likely come to an agreement that allows SCO to keep the money (for the moment) in exchange for some management changes - perhaps.
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com
over the years, SCO is the first that they've asked for the money back from. If that isn't a tell, I don't know what is.
Maybe they need to lose a few bucks then they'll learn how to ask for their money back a little faster.
"SCO's management, he said, was traveling too much and spending too much when it should have been concentrating its efforts and resources on its legal strategy."
nice. money for nothin, but does he get the chicks for free?
I think you are looking at the wrong stock. SCO groups symbol is scox not sco! Currently trading at 7.98 on yahoo!
Pulling funding from SCO will just make them act much like a cornered animal. Those SCO/Linux licenses might just become a collectors piece.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
1. Concentrate on and press the legal issues and win. Results for BayStar are obvious.
2. If the court cases are to be lost/abandoned etc then SCO needs to have some public goodwill in order to attract new customers.
It isn't doing (1), all we are seeing is grandstanding and namecalling.
It surely isn't doing (2) - SCO is the most hated company in tech.
Darl fancies himself a scrapper who can take the heat, but he's sacrificing SCO and all of the shareholder equity to buttress his ego. A CEO should put shareholders first.
Why is this behavior obvious to everyone but SCO, and our courts?
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
More on this at Groklaw and the Mercury News
"BayStar Capital Management LLC believes SCO needs to hire executives with more savvy about intellectual property cases and spend less money on its Unix products, BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath said Wednesday."
"SCO's chief executive is Darl McBride, whose cash compensation totaled $986,047 in the company's fiscal year ending last October. That pay package troubled BayStar, McGrath said, given SCO's small size - the company has annual revenue of $79 million and about 300 employees."
Baystar may finally be the one's to shut oldSCO's mouth for us so that IBM can finish the execution cleanly
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Since BS is essentially bankrolling a luxurious experiment by a few well paid lawyers - it seems that for its part - it would rather have the money back than continue to invest in the salaried of attorneys - which can only mean that it doesn't think the risk/reward ratio is positive any longer.
A strange because it suggests that the business model really was FUD - that they didn't have a leg to stand on - but they could threaten in the hopes of creating an avalanche of copitulation (large firms signing up for licenses) If this had happened prior to court - the case could have been dragged out - while the revenue came in. Clearly MS was willing to lower some of the risk by cost sharing - but from where I sit - they don't have any more of a case than they can make - and there will likely be no more response to identified code - than removing it - and since it is clear now that no-one has acted intentionally - the reality of huge punative awards is unrealistic.
Kudos to OS for dodging the biggest bullet to date - I doubt there are any more of greater significance looming on the horizon - the other legal accomplishment would be to uphold the GPL without frightening the world that OS is similar to the RIAA.
AIK
Regardless of the language, to me it looks like a no-confidence vote.
That which does not kill her only prolongs my agony.
"For his part, Mr. Goldfarb said that with reforms in
management practices to address BayStar's complaints,
it might keep its funds in SCO."
This is troubling. Baystar thinks they have a chance.They are saying get rid of some yooboos and stop living off our cash and we'll still play with you. I think SCO has done it already with the CTO leaving. Thie question is if that is enough good faith. The stock is up. Someone might think so.
An inefficient SCO is scary enough. One that drops the hype and just goes about this quietly could be worse. If nothing else, it would reduce the number of SCO-related articles here on /.
On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing... ;-)
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=SCOX
This one shows the standing orders for buys and sells, which if you do a comparison, shows possible daily trend. More Sell orders can mean declining price. Also look for the variation of prices between the sell and buy sides. A huge descrepancy can mean valuation problems within the market.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The parent comment is a direct, ontopic reply to a line the editor wrote in the story. How is that 'flamebait'?
OK! WHOOT! I'm a CLASS-A Idiot this morning :)
I looked up SCOR, not SCOX
SCOX is at 8.05, *up* a 1.25 today.
As another post put it, I'm glad I'm not an investor, this kind of news causing the stock price to go up just befuddles me.
What about the statement from Blake Stowell of SCO that, "Contrary to the speculation of Eric Raymond, Microsoft did not orchestrate or participate in the BayStar transaction."?
Now, who needs a tin-foil hat?
1. I love "eating" pussy as much as the next guy, but that made me cringe. 2. How the hell did the SCO story remind you of THAT?
"And now, Frank N. Furter, your time has come. Say 'goodbye' to all of this, and 'hello'... to oblivion!"
The SCO website is planning a different legal strategy.
...A court hearing most likely.
The Large Button on top of their page is advertising "SCO Forum 2004 *The power of Unix*" On the bottom of the button it says:
Register Early and WIN!
What do you win?
"Den som vover mister Fodfaeste et Oieblik; den som ikke vover mister Livet." -Soren Kierkegaard
We all know the type. Slick management type, wearing neatly pressed suits. Reads the type of trade publications that feature head shots of middle and upper managements atop articles full of jargon, but devoid of content. Power lunches. Golf trips. Owns a Lexus. Won't give a lowly programmer type the time of day.
These fools with millions and millions of dollars to spend somehow didn't get the information that the rest of us got for free.
I'm not sorry for them. Not even a little bit.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I was graced with an ad proclaiming I could buy SCOX for $4 a share through sharebuilder.com while looking up the currents...
Hmmmmmmmm......
Perhaps he was an easy sacrifice to the money gods. It would seem though that SCO's officers like the limelight more than the business of business.
Hopefully they'll keep wasting investor cash. That is the quickest way of halting this strange saga.
I found it interesting that Baystar wants SCO to give up on UNIX to pursue the "intellectual property process." In other words, Baystar wants SCO to give up the only service it offers and pursue legal action against Linux (and Linux users) even more than it is now! In fact, if they do this (and a few other things), then Baystar might change their mind about recalling their stocks..
I wonder who would benefit most from this (cough Microsoft cough cough....)
ps - I do like the idea of no more Daryl McBride, except for the fact that he probably will help the Linux community more in the end with all his irrational rantings and ravings!
>> SCO is the most hated company in tech.
Wouldn't that be M$?
Offtopic but.... Link on SCO's home page: "Why SCO could Win: Week Two. -- eWeek.com." However, if you actually click on it the article title on eweek is "Why SCO Thinks It Can Win"??
Before 1998 there wasn't Google, MySql, iMac, Seti@Home, Microsoft Access and well... Microsoft Windows 98. :)
Look here for more.
More interesting is the article over at ZDNet. In that article, Baystar contends that Darl should step down, and that SCO is wasting it's time with the Unix business. Baystar suggests that SCO make litigation its only business.
I would like to thank the submitter for using the google partner link to the NYT article.
It went down several days ago when the Baystar news came out.
/me thinks Baystar knew all along what SCO was planning to do.
It's going up today (perhaps) because Baystar has just clarified their position to say they might leave the money in if SCO gave up any pretense of being in the software business and replaced their top management with people who are better in legal fights.
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
Baystar's problem is not with SCO's position on the issues, but their handling of the issues. Some quotes from BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath in the article make this clear.
"We think there are limited prospects of that business ever generating growing and significant revenue," McGrath said.
"And we believe it is diverting resources from going where they would have the most value--the intellectual property process."
BayStar asserts SCO's Unix products business doesn't hold long-term value for shareholders"
In fact, if SCO would get their act together and focus on just legal issues they would consider continuing support for them.
"We think they need to strengthen the senior team to get people with experience and background in the legal issues," McGrath said.
If SCO addresses BayStar's concerns, McGrath added, the investor is open to reversing its redemption request."
It is bad sign when your investors tell you to stop acting like a technical business and persue your legal intellectual properties as your business model.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I think it's even more telling of BayStar that they believe SCO should be investing more in thier legal team, as opposed to, I don't know, DEVELOPING GOOD PRODUCTS AND IMPROVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS!!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Didn't Darl file for a buyback when the stock was at $10, saying that the company felt that the price was a bargain? By now, since the stock has slipped so much since then, shouldn't SCO be jumping at buying back all those shares at an "even better" bargain?
Or was the buyback filing and press release just another attempt to pump up the stock price through FUD? Does anyone else think that the buyback filing and subsequent press release was purely a stock-pumping ploy?
BayStar doesn't see the SCO UNIX business as viable (no surprise there), and wants SCO to become an IP lawsuit mill. Wazzup with that? There's *no chance* SCO can survive that way, 'cause they don't HAVE the IP to win their current cases, let alone any new ones. So either:
1) BayStar got into this "sure thing" by bad judgement, is blowing smoke about their present motivations, and actually want some money out now, quick, before "the plane hits the terrain", or
2) BayStar is shilling for soMeone elSe and doesn't give a soaring adlunar coition about SCO's prospects for survival or monetary return, or
3) they are in some altered reality where they still think SCO *can* win. In that case I don't want any of what they're smoking, it impairs judgement too much.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
What's more likely is that this bad news was already factored into the stock price:
I've been following SCOX (the stock ticker) ever since seeing /. ers beff with them. I believe it started tanking soon after everyone (linux commuity)) got up in arms about the suits. Would've been a good stock to short, but I don't have the stomach to short a tech stock (infinite loss potential + volatility of an SCO)
Why should SCO have to pay them back so quickly? The lawsuit was total BS right from the beginning. First making a false claim, and then raising it to $5B? It's more obvious that they are taking it to any length and not making rational business decisions.
But really, wasn't the lawsuit irresponsible right from the start? They didn't show any actual or empirical evidence of the copyright infringement. If BayStar was stupid enough to think that SCO would win, to invest in them, damn right, they should have to stick with it.
If they win against SCO, though, I won't be complaining. SCO is a dishonest company, and they deserve to be put out of business. It's a shame that a company (well, two companies, actually) that used to be innovative, and a good company to do business with, be run in to the ground by a bunch of litigous bastards.
Bay Star is a 'hedge' company, another way of saying they are a leech. They buy companies that are worth more parted out and then call the scrap man. But then again, they DO have that LONG six year legacy to fall back on, don't they?
Don't invest your money in some other company's war.
Baystar will be out $20 million because their people were persuaded by Microsoft's people to fund SCO's attack on Linux.
Some Baystar people need to be fired for that one.
...there's the long-term investors. They go by the percieved real value increase. The real value doesn't change significally over short periods of time. These typically look for underpriced / overpriced stock and measure investments in years.
The rest are all trying to second-guess what others will want. The mid-term traders try to predict the long-terms, the short-terms the mid-terms and the daytraders the short-terms.
This typically result in "waves" in the stock price even where the real change is slim and none. Think of it as a bullwhip where the realinvestors give a nudge, and it comes out as a snap. Even if the original nudge is purely downward, the whip will go both up and down until it resettles.
This whole picture is even more clouded by derivates such as options and futures, which can act both as accelerators and brakes to such a process. You have e.g. the short squeeze and the dead cat jump, caused by options coming to a close.
The stock market has its logic. But it is definately that of its own, where expectations drive almost everything. Witness the 1929 stock crash or even the dotcom wave to see that. Eventually reality will catch up and ask "Yes, but do we make any money in the real world?" but it takes literally years.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"We understand (BayStar general partner Larry Goldfarb is) disappointed that the stock price has been going downward lately," Stowell said. "We haven't been real excited about that ourselves. But we believe the long-term prospects of the company are good."
Good for me to POOP ON!
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Sarcasm never seems to lose it's edge. However, there are some interesting revelations to this statement:
> All the way back to 1998, a whole six years ago.
BayStar formed as fate itself would begin to turn on the dot-bombs. BayStar, and the rest of the world, witnessed the plethora of cunning weasels around the world die of financial mass-suicide; but why invest in SCO to begin with? I find it hard to believe that BayStar would forget about the dot-bombs long enough to jump into SCO stock, with both feet -- unless for Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics, by means of an investment recommendation. Such a recommendation seems terribly crooked, as Microsoft is not a trader and has no business telling anyone which stock to buy. Any freshman would know that the SCO follows the dot-bomb philosophy (to a T), grabbing all the loans and investments they can, as if the very bundles of neatly wrapped Benjamins somehow could form a flotilla of Titanic-sized life-jackets.
So someone at BayStar realized that the SCO was bad for business and they pulled out. Good. But you have to ask why they jumped into that deal, and examine Microsoft, again.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
If I were you man, I'd be ashamed to admit that in public. Real men don't cry or eat pussy.
yeah. That is REAL money. Just think what that could have been used for: funding a great new product, trying to dampen a social ill somewhere, anything really.
In the end what a shame.
Linux is an operating system that is distributed free. It is improved and debugged by a worldwide network of programmers, who share the basic source code
...however, is it GWbasic or Qbasic?
It makes their life alot easier, if everyone using any other operating systems would just register them, so they can send them an invoice and/or lawsuit.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Coffins are real, BushCo and his Nazi Party don't want You to see Dead Americans. Remember there are hundreds of young Americans dead, thanks entirely to George W. Bush the war criminal.
litigating is seen as (or in this case, REALLY IS) more profitable than actually creating or servicing a product. If this isn't a case of rich people trying to get richer without any effort (and I don't know about you, but I don't consider hiring a team of legal sharks to do dirty work effort), than I don't know what is. Go ahead and flame me, but this is everything that is wrong with capitalism as currently being practiced in this country. Reminds me of an old "Wizard of ID" cartoon. "Don't you know what the golden rule is?" "Sure, whoever has the gold makes the rules!"
No, moron, my point was that by hiding the true costs of the war, the chickenhawks are DISHONORING the people that died because their country sent them to fight.
investing in UNIX completely. Since Baystar's investment can only make them money if SCO wins the IBM lawsuit, this makes sense. Spending time on an actual product, building a good relationship for longtime company growth, etc. won't make them a dime. As far as they're concerned, it's wasted money.
Amateur.
I don't lose control/pass out until at about 3.20.
That's an empirically determined fact.
I feel sorry for your girlfriend already. Or is this why you don't have one?
Incriminating stuff on Microsoft's recommendation from the article:
"It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda," Mr. Goldfarb said.
This from the guy at Baystar who was involved in the deal. Earth calling D.O.J. Earth to D.O.J. come in please.
The reason for the increase today is because they named a new CFO yesterday. Look for it to continue its downward trend next week.
SCO sells two versions of Unix, OpenServer and UnixWare, which are used chiefly by companies such as McDonald's with numerous smaller outlets, restaurants or offices. That is bad, I cannot eat a quarterpounder or big mac anymore until they drop their IT infrastructure. This is a sad day.
The enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend.
I'm sure that Baystar would leave their money with SCO if Microsoft could find a way to funnel $20 million to Baystar.
SCO wants money.
Baystar wants money.
Darl wants media attention.
Microsoft wants to cripple Linux.
We'll see how this plays out.
This is a shot across the bow of SCO management. In other words, a public warning to the management team that their days are numbered unless they focus on what their owners want.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
From this news article from yesterday:
It's little editorials like this (calling a PR spokesperson a "spokesdrone") that keep Slashdot from being considered as a serious news site. When I first saw the article, I was hoping that perhaps Slashdot had scooped the interview from other major news outlets. Seeing how the Slashdot editors treat the PR department of major corporations, I can understand why Slashdot is incapable of providing an interview of anyone who *really* matters in the business world (not to say the OSS software engineers, programmers and zealots don't make a difference, but they have yet to make a serious impact in the marketplace). I'm not saying the editors have to forget their ideals out to snag the interviews (and news) that matter, but a little dignity in thir work goes a long way for credibility.
But hey, if this is a sounding board for the editors to get their personal views of the world off their chest, then by all means, go ahead. Just don't start whining to the general populous about the low number of paid subscriptions.
a quarterpounder or big mac anymore until they drop their IT infrastructure. This is a sad day.
You eat that shit? I can't remember the last time i step into a McDonald's. I must have been 6 or 7 years old, too young to judge and to young to know what good food tastes like. Try something else. No, not Subway, it's the same tasteless shit.
If you go check out SCO's and Microsoft's company profiles it seems that Darl is taking home more than Bill. How can a shareholder see the CEO of a 300 employee company take home over $1 million when a company is in the red and be confident is beyond me. Looks like Baystar is coming to its senses.
BayStar is actually validating SCO's strategy .
But to make SCO's case stick, the company needs to change its management, focus on its legal case and communicate in a more "sensible, businesslike fashion," BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath said.
Knowing how conservative these groups are, especially when criticizing a company your company has invested in, one can only imagine what might have happened to spurn this. It's not like SCO's weak case wasn't obvious to anyone with knowledge of the situation.
This is the kind of PR spin you put on a situation where, say, Baystar's CEO walks into McBride's office and finds him wearing a diaper and playing with Barbie dolls.
We all know the type. Slick management type, wearing neatly pressed suits. Reads the type of trade publications that feature head shots of middle and upper managements atop articles full of jargon, but devoid of content. Power lunches. Golf trips. Owns a Lexus. Won't give a lowly programmer type the time of day.
Actually, if you read the article, BayStar's #1 complaint with SCO is the fact that they're paying their executives too much, blowing too much money on travel, and making too many publicity stunts instead of quietly focusing on the bottom line.
In other words, BayStar is criticizing SCO for acting like the stereotype you put forth.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The way I remember it, SCO was "engaged in publicity and debate" way before BayStar jumped on the bandwagon. All of sudden they realize this?
The moral of this story: when Microsoft points you to a place that you can spend tens of millions of dollars of your own money, they aren't doing it just because they like your tie. They are doing it for their own reasons, and won't really care if it turns out badly for you.
I hope BayStar doesn't get a dime back from SCO--hopefully they'll consider the merits of the issue more carefully next time Microsoft gives them a "hot tip." And hopefully BayStar losing tens of millions to SCO puts a chill through the investment community to beware of Microsoft advice.
--
$tar -xvf
Baystar requests redemption just to shake up SCO management? If they didn't like Darl, why did they give him the money in the first place?
The SCO management team is the same one that existed when the deal was made. SCO products are the same. Other than adding litigation as a line of business, they are the same company that existed at the time of the PIPE deal.
Redemption is an extreme action on Baystar's part, and I don't buy their explanation that the only problem is now SCO's senior management and their non-litigation products. Whatever the real reason is, this is NOT it.
I think MSFT is at it again, lobbying Baystar to give SCO a chance to avoid redemption, in exchange for ?????? This whole concept of "Make a few changes and you can keep the money" is 100% bogus.
...and it clearly says in the article that the change was long planned and nothing to do with Baystar. Baystar's complaint with SCO is all their public posturing; they would prefer that SCO quietly pursue the case in the courts. The serious changes that they want at senior management level are related to stopping this public posturing - and that means Darl.
Secondarily, they want SCO to quit the UNIX business altogether so that they can put all their focus on their IP litigation. They just want SCO to shut up and do this quietly. Given the brain-dead decisions that can be made by an uninformed judiciary (I'm thinking the MS-Eolas decision here), SCO publicly hanging themselves on a weekly basis is probably a good thing for Linux. So Baystar are not exactly the knight in shining armour.
"We're unsure what their issues are," Marc Modersitzki, a SCO spokesman, said yesterday. He added that the BayStar letter was "a notification, not a legal action," and that SCO hoped the two sides could settle the matter. - so if someone is not suing you but trying to be civil about things and is just asking you nicely it means you do not have to be civil back, you must always wait for a court date to solve your differences? No wonder USA is known as the most litigious nation in the world.
You can't handle the truth.
"It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda," Mr. Goldfarb said. need I say more?
Sure that's real bad. Take a look at WWI when troop deaths were measured in 1000s per DAY
Since it has been known for a while that their products are crap, it doesn't make much difference if someone says it. However, if Baystar sticks to the money back demand, it bankrupts SCO, making the stock worthless.
Some people still believe that there is a possibility that the lawsuits may bring in money. A bankruptcy precludes that (even if the lawsuits continue under a new owner, the money won't go to the stockholders). Thus, Baystar not forcing them into bankruptcy is good for SCO stock.
Which should we find more convincing: where Baystar put their money (if they remove the money back demand, they are indicating that they think they will get more money if they wait, i.e. that SCO will be more valuable after the lawsuits); or what they say (that SCO has crappy products).
Yes, we have now gotten to the point where the comment, "your products are crap, just stick to suing people," actually is a rosy view of SCO's future. No one believes in their products. At least some people still believe in their lawsuits. SCO is no longer a tech company. They are just a bundle of lawsuits hoping that one will carry through to a big reward from the deep pockets of IBM, Daimler Chrysler, or AutoZone.
There goes Darl's pension fund... Pity.
The Erogenous Zone
Reading this article I started to wonder about the likelihood of investors taking legal action against SCO and Daryl in particular when (not if) this whole charade comes crashing down. Daryl has been making public claims of millions of lines of stolen code, etc, etc. When the smoke clears I can only imagine some investors are going to set their sights on SCO.
dude, don't eat that poison. Eat in and out instead. not only do they treat their employees well, but they have the best employee retention in the fast food business. In fact, In and Out rocks. If I had to work at a fast food place, it would have to be In and Out. McDonalds will kill you anyways.
But isn't that a sign that the shorters think this is the lowest price SCOX will be at for a while -- so pretty much the same thing as for any other buying?
In addition to everything others have said... there's also diminishing return at work. If you shorted stock at $10 and its $2 now, a further fall of your maximim gain possible from this point on is pretty small. Not counting broker fees, interest etc., if you'd shorted $1000 of stock, you'd now make $800 in profit. Assuming its value falls away completely, your profit will only increase by a further 25%. On the other hand, the potential for loss is unbounded.
stop fighting!!.. there's no point.. the dark side is stronger.. quicker... it has unlimited negative mod points!!
/. guys will keep moding you down even if you start a Mod war..
you are completely right but the
resistance is futile..
Clicky click
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
CTO was a typo vs CFO. oops.
Something "long planned" - hmm. Its easy for them to say. But I wonder.
Explain to me how is it criminal for a company to recommand to another to invest in a company which is sueing a competitor ?
/.ers are jumping to conclusions, without prior knowledge of what the legal issues are.
Seriously, i'm not a U.S. citizen. Under which article of law will microsoft be pursued ? What can the SEC do exactly ?
I think a lot of
look more innocent. but ha! Were on to them! We know who she sleeps with. Monopoloptic muppet play. Get in governement liberales.
peace
"/Dread"
Why does this seemingly bad news for SCO not affect the stock price? SCOX is up 19% today. What the fuck is going on?
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
McBride has been setting himself up for the big fall since he started making his incredibly outlandish claims. Furthermore he has dug a hole to china to bury himself in with the public in general by citing that open source software is unconstitutional. This is the first step in his losing ground, I think you'll see him and the company go into a full downhill roll within the next three months. I believe it will end when they hit bottom and SCO is either bankrupt or bought out and Daryl will easily be "The Biggest corporate outcast of the Century*. This guy isn't going to be able to get a job scrubbing toilets by the time he's finished.
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
I know this article was copied from somewhere. I don't know where.. but I'll find it, maybe.
Meanwhile... give me all your money.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is all part of the plan. Sure I'm taking this completely out of my butt and I have absolutely no proof, but it's the only thing that makes sense.
Consider:
1) Darl McBride is *not* an idiot.
2) Baystar is *not* full of stupid investors.
3) SCO (and Unix) are expendible.
If I were to engage in a lawsuit that I could not possibly win, wouldn't I want to have a contingency plan? If I was investing in a company that could not possibly survive, wouldn't I want to have a contingency plan? If I'm in it for the big bucks, what do I care about SCO, Unix or SCO shareholders?
My version of events:
1) Microsoft sees an opportunity to make some ground on Linux. My guess is that McBride actually had the idea and brought it to MS, but you never know.
2) MS uses it's contacts with Baystar to inject the cash necessary to launch FUD against Linux.
3) The FUD attack is almost certain to destroy SCO. So, why invest in SCO?
4) Baystar puts clauses in its contract to be able to extract it's money before SCO goes kablooie. Check in a few months and you will probably see that they will also retain the rights to Unix.
5) FUD attack is almost certain to destroy SCO. So, why become CEO of SCO?
6) When Baystar takes it's money back, SCO will die a swift and horrible death. Share holders will very likely sue SCO causing it to bo bankrupt immediately. This will get the board of directors off the hook for any legal problems associated with FUD (never came to trial, never happened).
7) Most Executives have cashed in stock options already, but not McBride. Look for him to pick up a juicy job at eith MS or an affiliate.
My point is that in order for the board to avoid legal hassles, SCO *must* die before the case against IBM goes to trial. The Baystar claw-back is just facilitating this. Planned all ahead of time.
Also look for MS to lobby the US government asking for protection from "free" software. They will cite the SCO case -- the unfair competition lead them to their demise before they could launch their court case.
The death of SCO is not victory. The war has not even begun!
The community should come together and petition SCO and BayStar to keep McBride. It took YEARS after Dan Quayle left office for someone this high quality to come along. Let's not let him get away this easy...
"We think they need to strengthen the senior team to get people with experience and background in the legal issues," McGrath said. If SCO addresses BayStar's concerns, McGrath added, the investor is open to reversing its redemption request.
Hmm...
SCO has provided no evidence that it has a case, and doesn't appear to really know what it's doing.
BayStar obviously doesn't think the senior team is much good, which makes you wonder why it invested in SCO in the first place.
As BayStar sees the Intellectual Property issue as the only way SCO can survive, why has it taken a gamble, considering that there is no evidence that SCO even has a case?
Did Microsoft say, "Hey, invest in SCO", and BayStar blindly followed, without even researching SCO's claims?
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the Lindon, Utah-based company wants to resolve the issue but said it's not likely to make the three changes BayStar seeks.
SCO is blindly continuing as it has done from the start, kicking back and relaxing, just content to believe in its dreams.
"We think there are limited prospects of that business ever generating growing and significant revenue," McGrath said. "And we believe it is diverting resources from going where they would have the most value--the intellectual property process."
BayStar seems to be saying that SCO is dying, and this entire case is the only desperate grasp at holding onto life that it has. When you're desperate you'll do anything, which basically makes SCO's entire case a gamble that it can afford to take, seeing that it will lose anyway.
What did BayStar invest in this for?!
SCO doesn't expect to drop that effort, Stowell said. "Unix is our core business, and I don't see that changing," he said.
Outsiders can see that SCO's business is dying, but SCO is blindly pushing onward. Surely this reveals that SCO is ignoring any possibilities that it could fail in any of its attempts, but is carrying on regardless? Who would put anything into this company?
BayStar also has objected to SCO's vocal nature. Stowell stood by SCO's practices. For example, letters SCO has sent "were designed to educate the marketplace, and we will continue to try to educate the marketplace," he said.
Again, outsiders can see that SCO is doing no more than shouting out abuse like a little kid who's own foolish self-confidence makes him believe he is invincible. SCO is blind to how others perceive its actions, and how it reveals its weaknesses.
I wonder why BayStar ever put money into SCO? Nobody else is paying any heed to this case, people and their governments are still planning their moves to Linux and Open Source software.
If BayStar feels that SCO isn't doing enough to build up its legal case, surely that's admitting that it doesn't feel SCO currently has a good enough case? Why did BayStar take a risk on SCO?
It makes you wonder what Microsoft has been saying.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
BayStar to SCO: "No, no... Not evil enough..."
You forgot - this war is over!!! We Won! Bush said so.
What you are forgetting, is WWI was a "World" war, much larger scale with dumber generals, etc.
Great! With Baystar withdrawing their money, SCO was instantly bankrupt (RBC would certainly do the same, to avoid investor liability). No warning shot, no nothing, immediate bankruptcy. That would have been the worst outcome of the whole saga, for us, because then IBM, RedHat, and Novell (and perhaps Chrysler and Autozone) would not have the chance to obliterate SCO in court, clearing away the FUD around Linux in the process.
Now, if Baystar is satisfied with canning Darl and his cronies, and making the new management focus in the lawsuits, and agrees to keep SCO in life support, we stand an excellent chance of watching many wonderful things. Think of...
Naturally, I do not expect all of these to happen, I don't think we are that lucky. But, overall, I think these are great news. Go, Bay Star! Keep your money in SCO, help Microsoft screw the Linux hippies!
"There is no middle ground," Mr. McBride wrote. "The future of the global economy hangs in the balance."
Which side are you on Darl?
Motley Fool article about Baystar and SCO.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Baystar clearly says that they want SCO to concentrate on litigation instead of development.
They've bought the pig for slaughtering, not for further fattening it, and they are not being coy about that.
Don't tell me NOBODY got that joke.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...