Slashdot Mirror
Investment Firm Bids to Buy SCOs UNIX Operations
WebCowboy writes "It appears that there are still enough people out there deluded enough to see value in SCOs UNIX operations. York Capital Management has put in a $36 million bid for SCOs UNIX operations. The offer includes coverage of up to $10 million for payment of legal fees and York Capital would assume ownership of the disputed UNIX IP as well as what is left of the lawsuits.
Interestingly, SCO has offered this up for competitive bid (who would want to though?). Upon completion of the transaction, should bankruptcy court approve, SCOX would become solely a mobile applications provider (which is the only part of SCOs offerings that have undergone any meaningful development for quite some time)."
As it is, SCO owes Novell loads of money. Can Novell stop this sale and/or get the money?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Theres a sucker born every minute. Actually with 6 billion people in the world these days its probably 10 suckers every minute.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
The name is pretty tarnished now, though. I wonder if there's any money in buying up the name and creating a "New SCO"?
Probably not, but I'm sure someone thinks it's worth a shot.
Tell you what, I'll give then 50 quid cash-in-hand for the rights to the name.
It's a golden parachute. Follow the money.
I just hope that the bidder doesn't think that it's the IP. There is probably enough SCO support work out there to make a viable business though, if there are people who are still paying for their support.
I wonder how many degrees of separation there are between this new firm and Microsoft? MS has employed some wonderfull machinations in the past to further fuel tSCOg legal battle, and now when the battle is finally lost, up comes another firm offering some golden parachutes to the management?
Somehow I remain unconvinced that those responsible will be punished. The nuclear option seems pretty good to me, but I don't think the US would appreciate a 30 mile crater where Redmond used to be.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
The old /. joke expressed as 4 lines that end with 'Profit' is not really applicable.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
This is basically a private equity buyout. Private Equity is the big buzzword in the world of big money at the moment. What generally happens is that the buyer sees a company which it feels is underperforming and has a depressed share price, and offers a good enough price for it that the shareholders can't refuse. The money all comes from bank loans, which are secured on the company being bought -- a bit like a mortgage is secured on the house you're buying -- so as long as the bank agrees to the loan, it doesn't actually cost the buying company anything up-front. Once the purchase has gone through, they buying company needs to get the money to pay off the loan. This money comes from making savings at the company they've bought. Typically this would mean asset stripping, re-organising, selling off product lines and divisions, or whatever else it takes to make the money back. Wholesale redundancies are also almost certain. When a reasonably solid, viable company is bought out by private equity, they usually end up getting transformed into a much leaner and smaller company, and getting sold on again in the space of a couple of years. When it happens to a company that isn't solid and viable, the private equity firm will generally just sell off all the assets of the company, aiming to make a profit on the purchase price, and then quietly close down the husk that remains. This is what I predict will happen in this case. The buyer is looking at the assets -- the Unix operating system, the patents, licenses, and all the rest, and they've decided that it's worth more than $36 million. Of course, the strategy only works if there are people out there willing to buy the assets for more than $36 million. I suspect there probably are. Even with the lawsuit results, there is enough left to cherry pick. You can be pretty certain they'll get rid of the lawsuits as quickly as they can; they're paying a block of lawyer fees up front to secure the purchase, but they won't want to pay any more, as it'll eat into the profitability of their bid. The law suits would require a long-term strategy, but a buyout like this will be geared solely toward making a short-term profit. The asset management company certainly won't be buying any of their debts, so the $36 million goes to the remaining SCO company (SCO Mobile? I guess they'll rename themselves to try to get rid of the burden of the name SCO). Pays off their lawyer bills, pays off their debts to Novell and other creditors, maybe even leaves them with a few pennies to rub together at the end if they're lucky, leaving SCO Mobile as a theoretically viable (albeit not particularly valuable) company.
You know, it's articles like these which demonstrate why Slashdot's become less than necessary reading these days.
Whatever SCO (the company) has done to Linux, SCO's UNIX systems were alright. They weren't fashionable, but, they have a working kernel and standard user-land utilities. Obviously, the SCO IP isn't quite as fresh as it once was, but, there'd still be gems to be mined. They also (still) have a (declining, but, still present) bucket of support contracts.
In a market where Facebook (without an obvious revenue stream) is valued in the billions, you'd have to be an unbalanced zealot to suggest they couldn't raise $34M for their entire UNIX related IP collection. Sure, it's not been selling well in the last couple of years, but, you should never judge the quality of a product by the skills of the salesmen.
"JGD Management Corporation has its principal executive offices at 1118 East Green Street Pasadena, California 91106 (http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.v51a.htm)
If you google the address the first match is a reference to a page on Edgar which provides the Form 4 (any of you US business types know what that is?) for a comany known as Arrowhead Research Corp which has one R Bruce Stewart as its CEO and Chairman of the Board.
(http://edgar.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?Sessi onID=T-hII2bI2EHwHrP&ID=3669175)
R Bruce Stewart founded Acacia Research Corporation in March 1991. (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearshe et.jhtml?passedPersonId=927443).
Has anyone heard of Acacia Research before?
Hmmmm.
It has to be a coincidence."
The asset purchase agreement between Santa Cruz and Novell gave Novell the right to yank back the business if Santa Cruz had a 'change of control'. That means Novell can veto the sale. In fact the clause was inserted because Novell was worried that Santa Cruz would go bankrupt.
Will the bankruptcy judge void the APA. AllParadox, a retired lawyer who has been following this closely, says that they don't do that.
the vultures got tired of circling then? gliding into land....
no doubt it will be a buy, slice, dice and sell operation. its doubtful there is a long term viable business there anymore.
bit of a fall from grace though, SCO used to be well respected back in the day. heyho.
You just found one of the illuminati.... You'd better run.
Deleted
why don't they just sell themselves in ebay? After all, a paperclip can generate millions! :)
There is no bid, SCO said in bankrupty court that there "MAY be a buyer".
They are going down the tubes and they are doing anything they can to stem the tide. If they means they go to bankruptcy court to spread this rumor, so be it. Only a fool would believe them.
The SCO thrust caught fire, blew up and is sinking at a respectable clip. Since it became obvious that this would happen (sometime in the summer), SCO's puppet masters had them "re-focus" their business into "mobile solutions". We should all know that "mobile solutions" is where shitty ideas and companies re-focus in order to perhaps get a little bit more investments in; therefore we can consider that SCO is basically a walking corpse at this moment.
This "Unix IP" sale is so that SCO can be permitted to sink and Novell & IBM may attempt to get their butter & 2K monies (as in JA I AM MADE OF) from a shell of a shitheap, if they can. Once the "Unix IP" package is moved elsewhere, SCO's puppet masters may attempt to re-do this whole operation in a few years in a more favourable legal environment and perhaps a judge that is more "reliable" (i.e. in their pocket).
There's a minor hole in this coreography though. If 6 million has been offered for the "Unix IP" parcel, then it should be obviously outside the group of stuff that SCO may hammer to get out of deep red again. The money from the sale would obviously go to pay executive salaries (some 80,000$ a month, is it?) and lawyer fees (well past 5 million US$, I reckon). I suppose we'll see whether the SCO chapter 11 trustee is in the puppeteer's pocket or not.
I must say that Microsoft planned this one out pretty well. Of course their plan relies on corruption to smooth the way so that their side can execute their moves quicker than the opposition, as always, but still.
It's getting better!
But sir knight, you have no arms and no legs, what are you going to do, bleed on me?
SCO's UnixWare and Xenix were a staple of the VAR world, but I would not touch SCO's assets if I was a paper-pushing business person. People are abandoning UnixWare for Linux. Example: IBM had a program to sell mainframe emulators that ran on UnixWare and Linux. The program was wildly successful, many orders of magnitude beyond what IBM thought it would be, and the revenue boost to SCO was huge (back when it started, Linux wasn't as robust and accepted as it is now). So it's ironic that one of SCO's big profit centers the past 5-7 years has been an IBM program! But (1) people use Red Hat, not SCO, for this; and (2) IBM and the emulator company had a bitter falling out and IBM suspended this program. This is the way the VAR world is going. You're not going to have VAR operating systems like UnixWare and Xenix anymore -- VARs are going to use Linux. The only way I would buy SCO's assets would be for pennies on the dollar to re-Caldera them and release them as open source, perhaps if I was a VAR who had UnixWare experience and wanted to offer support contracts. (My first job was supporting Medical Manager on Xenix, so it's sad to see what has happened to this once great platform. Medical Manager is still around, but I don't know what it runs on now. Probably Linux!)
It's a good day to be a lawyer.
I, for one, welcome our cash-laden overlords.
This has Microsoft stink all over it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+Acacia+Research&btnG=Google+Search
Its unix was never a top contender. It sure as hell ain't a Solaris. SCO ain't no IBM, it ain't even a HP. If you want cheap, there is Red Hat or any of the other Linux distros. So what is the value of UnixWare/OpenServer?
You don't get the support of IBM, you don't get the sheer robustness of Solaris, you don't get the opensource from Linux, you just pay more then Linux, get less support then from IBM, and a WHOLE lot less robust not just then Solaris, but ALL the other unixes as well. SCO unix is a dump. NOBODY LIKES IT.
The only thing that has going for it that it has a large install base for historical reasons, point-of-sale (cash register systems, fast food checkouts), who are often reluctant to switch. IT in this sector is always a mess, things never work, are always delayed and cost a fortune, so when a system finally operates, they don't want to change (nor need too, cash register technology really doesn't advance that much).
Don't forget that SCO hasn't been doing any development on their closed source unix versions, they were a linux shop too once.
Basically current IT strategy (HA) is for everyone who can to move away from SCO. Get that crap out of there at the next upgrade cycle. It never was a good product, has been neglected and the company has proved to be lead by the truly insane. They SUED their OWN PAYING customers. You don't do that.
Even you advice against using SCO "Whatever SCO (the company) has done to Linux, SCO's UNIX systems were alright." We disagree on that you think they were once alright, but even you admit that your are talking PAST tense.
As for selling it all of, WHAT IP? They have been proven in court not to own Unix, what IP have they got left?
So why are they doing it? Who is to say they do? MS been behind other finance deals related to SCO. For MS blowing 36 mill is nothing. Spare change. Could they be trying to buy SCO to continue the fight againt Linux? They done it before, and Ballmer is still on the warpath.
That is the most likely scenario to me.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
impossible, but microsoft will try to make it look that way.
I mean, what is the REAL business case for buying a company which only "assets" are some IP rights that they apparently do not own after all. It looks to me that some one else is pulling the strings behin escenes to continue the litigation agaist Linux.
you just named it.
Acacia = "InterActive Group" = "Arrowhead Research" (= Msft?)
"On May 29, 2007, we [Arrowhead Research] sold to certain institutional and accredited investors an aggregate of 2,849,446 shares of common stock (the "Private Placement Shares") at a per share purchase price of $5.78, and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 712,363 shares of common stock (the "Warrant Shares"), exercisable at $7.06 per share, in the Private Placement. Two investment vehicles of York Capital Management, a stockholder holding greater than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, participated in the offering."
http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u4d4r.htm
"Arrowhead Research" refers to Arrowhead Research Corporation, a Delaware corporation and formerly known as InterActive Group, Inc."
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/symbols.asp?exchange=NGM&start=A&sort=cap&Type=0
"The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Arrowhead Research Corporation (a Delaware Corporation), formally InterActive Group, Inc., and Arrowhead Research Corporation (a California Corporation), a wholly-owned subsidiary. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
. . . .
In October 2003, in connection with an initial private placement of Common Stock, the Company [Arrowhead Research] accepted 80,255 shares of Acacia Research Corporation, valued at $500,000, and $500,000 cash in exchange for 1,000,000 units. The shares are carried on the financial statements as marketable securities. See Note 3."
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/05/17/0001015402-04-002107/Section7.asp
"On May 29, 2007, we [Arrowhead Research] sold to certain institutional and accredited investors an aggregate of 2,849,446 shares of common stock (the "Private Placement Shares") at a per share purchase price of $5.78, and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 712,363 shares of common stock (the "Warrant Shares"), exercisable at $7.06 per share, in the Private Placement. Two investment vehicles of York Capital Management, a stockholder holding greater than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, participated in the offering."
http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u4d4r.htm
I googled "York Capital Management", the 2nd hit was their "about us" page. At the very top of the page it says "YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK"
Isn't that Curly Howard of the Three Stooges fame's laugh?
It's getting a laugh out of me! YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK!
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
it's like a zombie ... and it wants to eat our brainz.
our delicious, unix based, brainz.
Wrong. The liability for the lawsuit would not be transferred by the deal, so YCM would take everything BUT the lawsuit's liability, therefore making them "magically liable for nothing". Thats why YCM wants to do this deal, they get no risk out of it other than managing a company. Also look a little deeper, YCM has some ties to microsoft.
Googling Acacia Research brings up Microsoft connections all over the place... yep, its them again, keeping the zombie SCO undead..
It should be noted that the agreement specifically EXCLUDES the transfer of the Novell and IBM litigation to York. The actual motion can be read on Groklaw (as usual) with more info than the LinuxWorld article.
The APA, the agreement managing SCO and Novell's working relationship as it pertains to Unix, stipulates that in the event of bankruptcy the ownership rights shift back to Novell. I don't think SCO can sell them if they wanted to.
And why would YCM want to take on the potential liability of the counter-claims against SCO? That makes no sense. Sounds like they want to try to take the meat and leave the potatoes. I doubt that will fly with the BK court.
Interestingly coincidental that the sales price is the exact same amount as the converted funds SCO took, isn't it? What are the odds?
I wonder how long it will take for the FOSS community to find the links between YCM and Microsoft?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Let me try to explain better. YCM is accepting the company, but SCO is retaining the lawsuit liability of this specific case with novell for themselves. Meaning they have all this money but the money has nothing to do with the liability. Novell may have money owed to them by SCO in far excess of 36M or even 46M. We're talking 10+ years of business that got 0% royalties instead of 100% royalties as owed (note: not 96 or 95%, they were supposed to get 100% and return back a percentage after).
If you did some damn research instead of being a typical slashie with bad information, you would have gone to groklaw as mentioned and seen more details than the original website. Part of being a smart slashie is doing your own research in addition to articles posted because we all know they aren't always correct, summary and article for that matter. Don't attack my ego because you didn't do research and are thusly a moron because you got a +5 with incorrect information.
Regardless, if you had read at grok, you would have seen: "Among the excluded assets are "Seller's litigation with Novell and IBM, and its claims and choses in action other than the Linux Litigation." The total purchase price, SCO says, consisting of cash and non-cash components is "in the estimated aggregate amount of up to $36,000,000". SCO has to reimburse up to $50,000 of York's fees and expenses in connection with the deal. And if York is designated as "stalking horse" under the Bid Procedure Order, and if others outbid York, SCO has to pay them a $780,000 breakup fee and reimbursement of all expenses incurred by York up to $300,000."
So yeah, I'm not god, but I do my due dilligence and don't post out my ass (you forgot to wipe).
Just a few notes: 1) I couldn't care less about +5 or -5 (as this post will show), as I'm long past that age; 2) I did go to groklaw (wanna see the proxy logs?), I just didn't dig deep enough (my mistake), so stop making black-and-white assumptions in whatever way you like and stop pulling in needlessly childish toilet words in order to defend them; 3) you carefully did not adress my critique of your "100% false" claim, as you know you can't beat that; 4) please note that I at least explicitly mentioned that I was using only "the limited info I had" (ref. my original post), that I also explicitly left open the option that I might be wrong (second post), and finally also have the courage to write "my mistake" in this one.
Come back when you've learned some more manners.
Linux user since early January 1992.
Form 4: Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities
Jaywalker's link raised on google is fortuitous. The purchaser identified in the APA linked from Groklaw is JDG Management Corp d/b/a York Capital Management. From a recent filing for the purchase of a company in Israel:
The sole shareholder of JGD is James G. Dinan.
York Capital Management is a hedge fund. It invests in a lot of things, but this transaction looks like it might be a personal play. $36 mil is peanuts for this cat. He just paid $21 million for Dennis Koslowski's (remember Tyco?) old apartment
illegitimii non ingravare
Novell will almost certainly want all the money AND the unix business. Keep in mind, that this suit actually did a lot of harm to linux distros. Basically, when it was started with MS's and Sun's backing, Linux was rolling. This was designed to slow down the machine, which it did. This gave Sun and MS time to hold their own while they came out with new distros themselves. If I were Novell, I might want to take a LONG look at it. This is almost certainly part of the golden parachute that MS promised the SCO management, so I would work hard to prevent a single cent going to them. In addition, I would want to ALL of the unix business to Linux. Finally, if there is a mobile app base, I might want to convert that to Linux as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Can you just imaging how much some rich geek would pay for the privilege of using Darl's head as a doorstop?
:D
Or maybe a bowling ball - it's probably dense enough.
Look, I just stated you were wrong. With the "limited information" you had, you were wrong. Could I have been more polite? Sure, absolutely. You decided to open a Bevets style flamewar with the "god comment". I would not have given you an insult had you not earned one by firing the first shot and making it sound like I cared about my ego or someone else's. I said you were completely wrong. Is that bad to have an opinion that your information was incorrect, or did you already state that for me?
I don't have problems admitting my mistakes, in fact I enjoy asking for information when I am wrong, whereas you defend yourself. I think you might want to learn the difference between welcome criticism and provocation of others. If I am wrong, sure, call me on it. Also, I do care about +5, because I wouldn't want someone to have misinformation as a top post because other people will be misinformed. That wasn't aimed at you, that was aimed at correction of data. I've had it happen to me and I asked mods to mod down my posts when I did.
I didn't address your critique because I didn't want a flamewar. It's not that I am 100% right, I may or not be, and thats immaterial.
I also didn't claim it was MS FUD. I claimed that YCM has ties to Microsoft. The correct company is JGD Management Corp. d/b/a (doing business as) York Capital Management. Know who owns JGD and also has a board of directors straight from microsoft? JGD (Acacia) (SEC link).
So yeah, sorry if you got offended, but try not to start an insult fling and you might not get called a douchebag next time. I welcome snarky comments, not elitism.
For me flaming/insulting starts with "100% wrong" blanket claims that are obviously incorrect. If you want no flame wars, learn how to properly word the things that you want to say.
Of course you didn't claim it was MS FUD. Read again what I wrote before firing off replies: I said that to me the claim that MS is involved likely is a case of FUD.
So because you see a +5 post with incorrect info, and even one that in its first sentence warns about the possibility that it might be wrong, you decide to attack the author for being a moron who is only oh-so-happy to get +5 out of anything? And you see a need to pull in toilet words? Seems to me you're a bit trigger happy, but that's of course just my humble opinion.
Linux user since early January 1992.
This is just a way to milk a little more money from the stock. Issue a rumor of a buyer and people start buying the stock. That will in turn bump up the price of the stock.
And it's working - look at the current price of SCOX. And look at the activity, too. Also a telling point.
This is just more of the same from Darl and the gang. More fraud. I just hope someone with some legal clout eventually sees this for what it is. I'd love for the SEC to come down on these crooks like a ton of bricks.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Eh not so much trigger happy, you are welcome to your opinions. However, holier-than-thou due to admission of possibly being wrong is a bit elitist, as I mentioned. I know you said to you it was FUD, that was why I explained the situation (because we have a debate going and/or to show that it was indeed, not the FUD that you think it is/these are not the FUD statements you are looking for (pun)). Is it wrong to have opposing views in a debate and/or to supplant a statement with information, even if that information disagrees with what someone says/opines(sp?)? I would certainly hope not.
I called you a moron after I felt I had received an insult from you. Our perceptions of "when insult flinging started" are not the same. I did not feel nor take offense to you when I stated you were wrong/incorrect (as you yourself stated you may be). I do not like namecalling, but apparently you missed the implied subtlety there. I do not like people getting +5s for bad info, that spreads FUD. Don't think that was aimed at you, if it happens in situations where I can make an informed decision that the information provided is incorrect, I would post a correcting reply the same as now to whoever it is, period. Also your feelings on a +5 are equally subjective, that doesn't even have any relevance to this discussion, thats implying a "rain on your parade" situation, which is not the case. This isn't a "mod GP down", you know slashdot isn't intended for such a method. I don't know where the feigning ignorance goes on but posting misinformation and/or stating "it may be wrong" doesn't mean someone else is wrong for stating contradictory information. misinformation != accurate info. Simple as that.
I could easily compare this to someone saying (redacted) "we can neither confirm nor deny the torture done to the individual that we related with 9/11" (if you know the situation I'm referencing) and you can imagine how that feels when the question asked was an educated question with evidence. Doesn't get you off the hook.
Nope. A change in ownership t doesn't alter any of SCO's obligations towards Novell, nor does it alter SCO's financials. All it does is change one set of owners for another.
Remember stockholders enjoy limited liability; SCO investors can't be held liable for the company's actions for a larger amount than their investment. Novell can't go against SCO shareholders, and SCO shareholders can dispose of their equity as they want; it's none of Novell's business.
Are you adequate?
Who is York Capital and what is the connection to Bill Gates?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I didn't address your critique because I didn't want a flamewar.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have acted like a total asshole.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
yeah, I probably look like one at this point and smell like one too, lol. However, is it automatically impolite to post a correction (and state someone is incorrect) as a reply to misinformation? Regardless of if my wording was considered insulting?
NEW SCO 2.0 BUY NOW!!
...however I am only human and I hold enterprises that use litigation as a primary business model in pretty low regard. Plus sometimes being a little "trollish" elicits a mire lively discussion on the topic.
Obviously, the SCO IP isn't quite as fresh as it once was, but, there'd still be gems to be mined.
The tone of the article submission not only comes from my distian at Darl & Co's business conduct, it comes from personal experience with the product itself. You are being extermely charitable when you say SCO's IP "isn't quite as fresh as it once was". Their UNIX technology was already very stale when Ransom Love departed and Darl McBride stepped in and launched into all these lawsuits. UNIXWare 7.0.0, launched in 1997, was truly the last major innovation in SCO operating systems. Two years later 7.1.0 came out that included a few fairly meaningful enhancements to what appeared to be the same underlying system (though not quite as dramatic as, say the move from Kernel 2.4.x to 2.6.x in Linux).
In the eight years since, however, they've only made incremental changes in their core system (going from 7.1.1 to 7.1.4 kernels in that time)--even Microsoft's glacial progress with Windows outpaced UNIXWare's release time-line. Microsoft Service Packs tended to be bigger, more comprehensive updates than each release of UNIXWare.
In the time I was involved with UNIXWare in a professional capacity (from 7.0.0 to 7.1.1) I was impressed with its stability but extremely disappointed with its support (very good thing it was stable actually, or the lack of support would've killed it years ago). We struggled to get RAID working (needed to do patches and recompiles), struggled to get tape backup drives to work (no support at all there, we were SOL) and its Windows network interoperability was very weak (VisionFS stank--it was behind the curve on long file name support and performed poorly). Its compiler was also inferior to GCC. Out of frustration we let our SCO agreement lapse, migrated our servers to all Red Hat and stopped including SCO products in our customers' solutions. The best SCO had to offer seemed to be on the Skunkworks CDs and the open source applications on top of the OS (Apache, BIND, Sendmail, and Samba as a replacement for VisionFS), hence the logical move toward a Linux based OS. Things don't appear to have changed--apart from barely keeping up with support for new hardware the only significant changes in UNIXWare since have been to those same open source products. The mine has been completely tapped--no gems left to be found.
They also (still) have a (declining, but, still present) bucket of support contracts.
Declining is the key here. Investors don't typically look for businesses in the decline. At least it is a relatively slow decline (compared with the decline of the company itself). Those remaining customers really value stability, however since the product has gone stale there is no incentive to upgrade/enhance, thus no revenue potential. Stability is UNIXWare's hallmark--once you've banged you head against the wall enough getting it to work it keeps working, so UNIXWare users just let it run and don't disturb it--it is never patched and nether hardware or software is upgraded as long as it works...and it works until hardware fails or an application vendor forced their hand and makes them upgrade to support the app, not because the OS is so good.
In a market where Facebook (without an obvious revenue stream) is valued in the billions
No sane person would value Facebook at that level--that valuation is given because journalists have taken the agreement of "Microsoft pays x and as part of the agreement gets y percent ownership" and did some Grade 5 maths. MS obviously has motives other than just obtaining an ownership stake and sees value in the deal in other places (access to millions of eyeballs, more on-line presence, access to facebook's resources...).
you'd have to be an unbalanced zealot to suggest th
IBM has patent counterclaims which would follow the UNIX IP. If YCM takes over the UNIX IP, and they let SCO take on the current liability, then IBM's counterclaims could still make their IP worthless.
Am I missing something? This is not a no-risk deal for YCM.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Well here's another angle for you.
People used to say the same thing about Baystar.
Could it not be possible that these people have been asked,
via a shredded email, to do this as a favor to a certain company?
A company who shall remain nameless, but would promise to direct
a boatload of money to YCM for doing this?
Maybe the profit isn't coming from the purchase & resale of SCO,
but from a kick-back from You-Know-Who?
And I don't mean Voldemort!
This sounds like the kind of thing that would happen if someone at York Capitol Management owed some serious favors to someone at SCO . . . I wonder what favors Darl has parceled out previously to get this?
that's how I see it anyway . . .
TFA is misleading. JGD Management is not an umbrella for York Capital Management. The reverse is the case. You do not have to go far to find who is behind JGD Management, from a recent filing for the purchase of a company in Israel:
The sole shareholder of JGD is James G. Dinan.
Apparently the Masters of the Universe use php and like diminutive nicknames.
illegitimii non ingravare
For the record, I agree poetmatt is being antagonistic and I feel he's being pretty arrogant here. I just imagine he doesn't know that he's being such a jackass. Probably he's simply got very very very poor communication skills and doesn't know what he's doing.
It's definitely legitimate to post a correction or counter argument to discussions on Slashdot, that's one of the wonderful things about the comments and everyone benefits from well phrased arguments and different points of view. Not to mention a better collection of facts. However if I were to respond to you query or point with something like: 100% Never, absolutely not. No, it's not OK to post corrections, you inconsiderate block-headed imbecile. You're a moron While any given individual may respond politely with "Why isn't it OK to post correction", the majority of people would understandably respond to the latter part of the message.
You must be new here. Due diligence? Nobody hardly RTFA, are we really supposed to look for more sources?
Don't you guys understand that low IDs always win
Here for those of you who want to see the proper and fitting end of this whole fiasco go here: http://www.netdisaster.com/go.php?mode=bomb&url=http://www.sco.com/
- 1 Douchebag
:-)
"I got 5 on it."
Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
No they don't. (Think about it)
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say there was a company that had just dropped about $6B on a descendant of the NT kernel that's going nowhere in particular, realized that the path to a stable OS is based on a *nix of some sort, and is emotionally attached to proprietary IP. And would like a proprietary *nix with virtualization capability to make it possible to run their legacy OSs in emulation. (it's my understanding that the original Win4Lin IP that Win4lin 9.x was based on was originally from SCO)
Turning SCO Unix into a modern, viable OS certainly would cost less then $6 billion.
Tech Public Policy stuff
For what it's worth, I apologize for bringing out a counter-issue/debate in such an inflammatory fashion....I do think the information was worth a post of opposing opinions but did not mean to do so in the fashion of a personal attack.
-PM
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
most people can't even understand what I wrote, so processing it becomes a second step beyond, I've acknowledged that knowing something and presenting it in a usable fashion are far different situations in my book - and yeah, I didn't really think through the whole dickish attitude...not that it's okay, but I guess somewhat on par for someone who's 24.
-pm