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?
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
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.
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?
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.
And me also, but for different reasons. I've been in the financial services industry since before this company was founded, and I've never heard of a comparable case. The moral to me is to distrust Baystar as a potential investment partner.
Cheers,
Ian
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."
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!"
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.
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.
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.