Slashdot Mirror


SCO's Biggest Investor Admits It Loves IP Lawsuits

Roblimo writes "A Baystar Capital spokesperson has finally admitted, directly and on the record to NewsForge reporter Chris Preimesberger, that they believe SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits against Linux users and vendors. 'We're looking for the best return we can, and we think the focus should be on IP licensing (and enforcement),' said BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath."

18 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Behind every bad company... by ObjectiveGiant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is a bad investor. =\

    --
    ::signature space for rent::
    1. Re:Behind every bad company... by monkeydo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't fall for Roblimo's deception. He's deliberatly distorting the story. He says that Baystar thinks, "SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits." But then he quotes the Baystar spokesman as saying the focus should be on licensing. Duh. That's how companies make money from intellectual property. Of course this is only possible if you can make the threat of legal action.

      So really Baystar never said they love IP lawsuits. They said they want to make money off of IP. I'm sure that they would much rather just collect license fees than have to sue, contrary to what the title and Roblimo's description imply.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  2. Maybe ... by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm, I should contact them. Maybe they are interested in my bridge selling business too ...

    1. Re:Maybe ... by stevey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear David Boies

      On Behalf of SCO, I must ask you to cease and desist with your attempts to cease and desist others.

      Your cease and desist letters appear to have remarkable simularties with the proprietry and copyrighted cease and desist letters we produce.

      We are willing to reveal exact line numbers and phrases in common to any interested third parties under the terms of an NDA.

      If you do not cease, SCO will be forced to take legal action against you. To avoid all legal entanglements you may license our IP at a low price of $699 per single page cease and desist, or $1400 for double paged letters.

      Sincerly,

      Steve Kemp

  3. Interesting CNN article as well by edheler · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  4. RBE by Aussie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Isn't RBE in for 30 million. thats more than Baystar.
    How can Baystar be the "biggest investor" ?

  5. Re:Dark Side.. by KingDaveRa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you sure you don't mean 'Darl Vader'

  6. Re:Dark Side.. by FxChiP · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or perhaps 'Darth McBride'?

  7. Unbelievable! by haxeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But not nearly as unbelievable as it sounds. Like any 'good' software company, they believe their value lies in their IP, which it does. SCO seems to feel that people have infringed on their IP significantly enough for them to make a business out of taking money back from those whole 'stole' from them.

    This in itself isn't really that horrible, because they're just updating their business model to profit off of all the supposed stealing thats been going on. That is, if they could somehow get licensing fees from everyone running linux, that'd be a viable business.

    Of course, because it's SCO, no one really stole anything (as far as we can tell). And that's what makes them evil: making false accusations about infringement to drive stock price up, not pursuing what is rightfully theirs under the law.

    The reaction shouldn't be "omg! software company thinks their IP is valuable!" it should be "omg! software company is making outrageous claims about what they own!"

  8. the biggest con SCO pulled off so far... by ecalkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    may be against Baystar. i would assume that a capital investment company, especially one that invests in IP would do a complete and comprehensive evaluation of what they are investing in. which leads me to this: SCO painted a picture with *so* much recovery (lawsuit/licensing revenue) that it blinded them to the reality of situation.

    one hopes that when the countersuits start flying that baystar is named as a defendant right under sco.

    eric

  9. Maybe if SCO owned something to enforce by tiny69 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A Baystar Capital spokesperson has finally admitted, directly and on the record to NewsForge reporter Chris Preimesberger, that they believe SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits against Linux users and vendors. 'We're looking for the best return we can, and we think the focus should be on IP licensing (and enforcement),' said BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath.
    That might be true if SCO actually owned something in UNIX that they could enforce. But Novell owns the copyrights, The Open Group owns the trademark, and SCO doesn't hold any patents on UNIX. Not to mention that 95% of the profits from licensing enforcement that they currently do goes directly to Novell.
    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
  10. No shocker by A.T.+Hun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is nothing else that SCO has that is even remotely valuable. Nobody is going to want their outdated Unix anymore, especially since they'd be sued if they even looked cross-eyed at Linux. Suing your customers tends to drop ye olde customer satisfaction rating down quite a bit. The only way BayStar will come close to recouping their $20 million is if SCO survives long enough to win its suits. Both of those prospects are dubious at best. I think the big thing that BayStar (and others) will be learning is not to take investment advice from Microsoft.

  11. This isn't such a strange idea... by RecoveredMarketroid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now, I'm ABSOLUTELY not a fan of SCO's. But the basic IDEA expressed here is not such a strange one. Essentially, a company has two choices:
    1. Try to make money off that which you own and which is already developed, or
    2. Try to develop new profitable products/technology.

    Option 2 is expensive and risky by comparison. Sure, you want to develop new products, but if you are not milking what you can out of the existing ones, then there is no point in developing new ones! Management is being (criminally) negligent if it doesn't pursue option 1. LOTS of companies make money this way by licensing technology. If SCO does have a basis (or management believes it has a basis) for these claims, then management has an obligation to pursue this course.

    The really interesting points here, however, are:

    • That they are explicitly stating they believe SCO is incapable of surviving by option 2!
    • Many non-technical people don't understand what a crock SCO's case appears to be. While the investors may just be cynical/evil, it seems quite possible that the they BELIEVE that SCO's IP is legitimately being violated. (Perhaps, after the lawsuits fail, the investors may sue members of management for misrepresentation?)
  12. Linux supporters love McBride! by eddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >When the slashdot crowd are actually starting to like Darl for sinking the ship, THEN its a good idea to get rid of him.

    Not only is McBride our top pick for steering SCO into the ground (taking the investors with him) by using his large mouth to talk about "millions of lines of literal copying" that they have again failed to identify -- thereby again failing to comply to the court order to be specific (the next hearing will be very interesting. Will IBM finally ask for sanctions, or are they just too nice for that? :-) -- but he's also raiding the SCO coffers all by himself, lifting $968,000 out of the company last year! Almost a million dollars in salary+bonus from a business that's a COMPLETE FAILURE! Well, I guess it's not a complete failure if you count the core business as being 'stock scams', but let's just pretend they're a litigation company instead.

    McBride, we're on your side! Don't step down now -- You've got to ride this out (...and into that orange jumpsuit...).

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  13. Always with the Doom & Gloom, he is... by Thunderstruck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What are the social and legal effects of this kind of business going to create? In the unlikely event that SCO were to win big money for BayStar, other groups will begin to seek similar "investments." I see a progression here:

    1. Mutual funds and VC groups begin to seek out luctrative litigation opportunities.

    2. People begin to invest in these groups, because of the high rate of return. Skilled lawyers scour the land for untapped "violations" or negligence.

    3. The well begins to dry up. Investors need to keep the cash flowing in. but the only targets left don't carry enough cash to make them good targets. So they lobby the Federal Government to mandate the remaining targets to carry insurance.

    4. The risk is spread out, and we all pay more to keep BayStar's numbers in the black... with no social benefit whatsoever.

    5. Repeat, industry by industry.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  14. Time fixes everything.. by segfault_0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I personally find it relieving to see truth start to poke its head into play. This is why IBMs game plan is so strong, patience is a virtue, and they are execizing their power in a calm and controlled fashion. The key to a good lie is being able to use the lie and then put it behind you; SCOs lies and fabrications can't stand up to the light of this kind of media attention forever and now we see the curtain coming down. I dont think they realized how difficult continued deception can really be.

    --

    I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
  15. Deception? by SeinJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From McGrath:

    "We're looking for the best return we can, and we think the focus should be on IP licensing (and enforcement)."

    I think that statement (esp. adding "enforcement" to it) as well as this summary of the NY Times article by the author caused the OP to make the allegations.

    ... company executives were spending too much time and energy "in publicity and debate" with open source advocates about Linux, rather than focusing on legal strategy.

    According to those two statements, one could conclude that legal action is all Baystar is looking for.

  16. BayStar's Deathstar by scoove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe that's why BayStar now wants their money back from SCO?

    Not quite. My assessment is that they never expected Darl to go hog wild on the PR front, nor did they expect him to be "bright" enough (in his own parasitic, pathetic way) to realize he was being set up to drive SCO into the ground.

    Looking at BayStar's backers, the initial move against OSS was tremendously clever and dangerous. By funding small battles in minor lands, the goal was to poison OSS. Apply a stigma to it, make it look shady, risky and dangerous and corporate America will stick with the institutions of Microsoft, Solaris, Oracle, SCO, etc. (this theory helps explain why Oracle and Sun have appearances of being on the "wrong" side of OSS and may be receiving subpoenas in the matter - Oracle already has).

    Many of Groklaw's commentators have difficulty understanding why SCO, BayStar, Boies & crew, Sontag, and many other intelligent (ethics aside) people bet on such a ludicrous case. Sontag's recent copyright to patent morphing attempts, for instance, is terribly weak and Sontag clearly must be aware of it. But this case wasn't initially propped up to be the primary battleground between the proprietary software world and OSS. It was intended to be a lengthly skirmish between a pump & dump effort from a long-dead UNIX vendor and OSS.

    What went wrong? They hired the right white-shoe legal firm for the job (Boies), greased the pols (Hatch) and got the right court. What they didn't expect is an effective, organized opposition (e.g. Groklaw) and more so, did not count on losing the traderag spin (you can bet there's been some money spent to protect that message, but you can't stop them from dropping the paid spin once the issue goes mainstream, although there still is the occasional hack for hire out there). Oddly enough, though, the greatest mistake was trusting Darl and Chris to remain stupid and unaware that they were being set up to fail. Darl in particular believed the lies and the thought that he could actually own the empire that controlled what is presently OSS got him. Imagine the power and wealth from being the CEO to own Linux? They shouldn't have underestimated Darl's ability to self-delude, let alone his greed and power drive. The created their own monster and can't control him (though BayStar is now trying to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle). BayStar has a slight problem in this move, though, as it won't immediately kill Darl and instead, may make him feel even more attacked. Having dealt with pump & dump schemers like Darl before, the last thing you want to do is corner him. BayStar should have moved to redirect (e.g. offer another $20 mil or so and slow things down and move the matter off of the front pages of the tech press. Either that, or promote Darl to some "critical" to allow him to focus on building the future super Linux company and "not be distracted from the day to day of nasty legal stuff" - anything to get him out of SCOg).

    This truly is terrible news for the anti-OSS coalition. Fighting the main battle on this issue is a historic error. Should Linux be permitted to be decreed "legitimate and safe" through this process, you can expect Microsoft to lose its OS business within 5-10 years (being perhaps relegated to an office suite vendor), Sun left to push high-end AMD or Intel boxes, and Oracle simply to perish (hey Larry, can you say "Post-gres-ql?" I didn't think you could!).

    IBM's motivation is tremendously historical. They got screwed by the OS play with Gates the first time around and are salivating at a royalty-free OS that frees them from bundling leverage and other annoyances, let alone the license expense. Although they derive their own benefit, kudos to IBM for escalating the skirmish into an all-out war.

    *scoove*