Slashdot Mirror
BayStar Sets Lawyers on SCO
myster0n writes "According to The Register: 'SCO's attempts to rescue its relationship with BayStar, its biggest backer, have come to naught. On Friday morning, Eastern time, SCO announced that the stock buyback deal it agreed with the unhappy investor had closed. Two hours and five minutes later, Baystar issued a statement saying that a) no it hadn't and b) we'll see you in court, matey.'" Thanks to The Reg for the write-up.
...I'd advise drawing from this is to avoid business relationships with either of these companies.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Looks like SCO is about to finally see the damage they cause when they burn bridges via litigation. The less "business partners" SCO has, the shorter their life expectancy, which doesn't seem to consist of more than suing everybody, will be.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
This still doesn't represent any real threat to SCO because it is just a maneuver by BayStar to get the terms they want. SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar, so almost certainly there will be a settlement soon. This is all just pre-resolution chest thumping. S.O.P.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
....as SCO's stock skis ever downwards.
The Army reading list
From the second article:
SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout
Maybe a paragon of Corporate Virtue and Transparency . . . an oxymoronic (or simply moronic) statement in itself. But most definitely that group has been anything BUT virtuous or transparent.
It is not OK just to copy and paste the article text in your article submission. You can say something like 'The Register writes " ..."' but you can't just take credit for it. And come on, Hemos, can't you RTFA before you post it?
hmmm... while reading that, I kept thinking about the Bush administration for some reason...
You've got to wonder how much longer they can stand this abuse.
Looking at their quarterly income and cash flow statements, one can only draw one conclusion; SCO will be out of cash in roughly three to four quarters without a significant cash injection from an interested party.
Their stock price sucks, their product sucks, their management sucks, and they have NO customer good will. They have no prospects for income and roughly $60M in cash. At $12M+ losses per quarter, they will barely make it to the close of FY05.
I would hate to work there.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
BayStar ABSOLUTELY MUST do this! Otherwise, IBM and the others will be able to get the information about the link to Microsoft (read the Halloween Memos if you don't know what I'm talking about). They ONLY way to keep that information secret (and protect Bill) is to get it wrapped up in a lawsuit with "confidential" terms and a confidentiality agreement.
This has NOTHING to do with getting back the money they were instructed to channel to SCO.
So while we are all sitting around laughing at SCOX Baystar is definitely pulling a fast one to COVER THEIR investor's ASS(ETS).
SCO not only just killed themselves, but they ensured a VERY steep decline. Baystar did this just right, issuing a press release on a Thursday. It ensures a huge drop today.
Since its founding in 1998, BayStar has never before sent a letter to a company seeking its money back, as it has with SCO.
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.
"Keep riding" for those that got on early.
I see we're now in the "SCO becomes laughing stock of the IT industry" part. In fact, I think we're about to enter the "SCO shareholders gather to file a class-action lawsuit against Darl and his clique" part.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Really given SCO's history of statements, does this come as surprise to BayStar?
It's sorta like on Springer when a wronged boyfiend/girlfriend/spouse comes on to complain how their partner has cheated on them. It's ironic though if the guilty party says something like "Babe, how do you think we met? I was cheating on so and so with you! Babe, you knew how I was before we started dating."
I pray that Darl doesn't wind up on Springer wearing a wife-beater. The usual pattern is that by the end of the show he's stripped down to nothing. [shudders]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you lie down with dogs, you might wake up with fleas.
--
$tar -xvf
It would set a bad precedent that other struggling companies would try to follow. Release tons and tons of FUD to make your stock price go up for a little while and hope for a large buyout settlement at the end.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
'SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout, and that everything it said publicly and privately is true. But, and this should come as no surprise, it won't had over the documents BayStar wants to see. It says this is to "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information" and to "avoid fostering speculation regardng its SCOsource business".'
I love that one. Everything we said in public and in private is true -- even though they are contradictory.
SCO must protect the confidential "IP" in the documents, and therefore cannot let Baystar see the documents. After all, Baystar might discover SCO's proprietary trade secret business model of saying one thing to the press and to prospective investors; but saying something else in court filings and SEC filings.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Look, SCO is already dead. Kaput.
Baystar are the people who funded this whole debacle, and I'd like to see them spanked hard. The only way to do that is if they lost their *ENTIRE* stake in this dubious venture.
People, vote for SCO in this one. Suck Baystar dry.
When you fight a war with sharks keeping the waters clear for you, you have to beware of when the sharks decide that you are a better meal than the scum you're letting float by.
My reality check bounced.
What if SCO is right?
Well, as that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse, I think we'll all have bigger things to worry about.
Seriously - wondering "what if SCO is right?" is like wondering "what will I do if monkeys fly out of my butt?" After all, you've never had monkeys fly out of your butt before, so therefore the longer you go without having monkeys fly out of your butt, the greater the chance that they eventually will, right?
the length this has drawn out does make one wonder.
The length of time is simply a demonstration of how long someone can game the system. Why not simply ask "why has this drawn out so long, and SCO has yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support their claims?"
It says this is to "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information" and to "avoid fostering speculation regardng its SCOsource business"
The thing that really gets me about that one is that the two million or so shares Baystar is due represents about 1/6th of SCO's outstanding shares. So SCO is basically saying it needs to keep "proprietary data" secret from the people who own over 15% of their company. How the hell does THAT make any kind of sense?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
It is not in Microsoft's interests to buy SCO. When SCO's lawsuit crashes and burns (it will take a while but it is inevitable), SCO will become a HUGE liability. IBM, RedHat, Novell, as well as any other Linux company, could then go after Microsoft for damages and put a significant dent in their $50 billion warchest. That is why Microsoft want to keep SCO at arm's length and downplay its involvement in the scam.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Really, there will be a sad end to all of this... The fact that Daryl will be able to walk away with millions from his previous endeavors saying, "Ah well, we gave it a shot anyway..."
That's right, after all the lying and cheating he will walk away... When he should be in jail.. All because when big businesses make pulic claims they are just "stating their opinion" and aren't held accountable for what they proclaim.
On the other hand, there's the risk that: 1)the GPL gets validated in court; and 2)Linux is legally declared unencumbered by patent/copyright violations. Also, OSS projects may be reevaluated by companies that were waiting for the legal dust to settle.
BTW, doesn't IBM have a regiment of lawyers on the payroll anyway? If so, I doubt their pay would be different depending on whether they're filing court papers or surfing the Internet.