|
|
| BayStar Speaks |
 |
|
Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT
|
The New York Times has the story on why BayStar did a Uturn: "In an interview Wednesday, Lawrence R. Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar, explained why his hedge fund originally invested in SCO and detailed for the first time what he regarded as the wayward corporate behavior on SCO's part that led to the recent split.
"Mr. Goldfarb described a company that had become too engaged in publicity and debate with the passionate advocates of the free Linux operating system. 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.
"'The real issue for us was spending and focus,' he explained. The public statements from Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, were too frequent and too grand for BayStar's liking." I don't know that I'd characterize anything Darl says as "grand", but de gustibus, non disputandum est, as they say. Right or wrong, BayStar says, they made their decision to invest in SCO on the basis of whether they thought Boies could prevail in front of a jury (that old investor's pipedream -- like this case is ever going to reach a jury). Microsoft, they acknowledge, has an obvious agenda, but that wasn't why BayStar invested in SCO. Right. Significantly, Goldfarb indicates it might reconsider if SCO changes its ways: "For his part, Mr. Goldfarb said that with reforms in management practices to address BayStar's complaints, it might keep its funds in SCO." Are they asking that SCO get rid of Darl? Or that he mend his ways? Was this all just a grandstand play to get concessions from SCO? Or . . . well, I'm not a stock expert. I'll have to leave stock speculation to others. Is it possible SCO is wanting to get out of the litigation, and BayStar wants to hold them to the original plan?
More details from Mercury News. They do want new people at the helm: "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." They also think Darl was being paid too much: "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." Does this mean we won't have Darl to kick around any more? The Mercury News reports one more detail: "The investment firm didn't consult with Microsoft before its showdown with SCO." So maybe they are "reconsidering" after hearing from Microsoft? You think? Stephen Shankland got a reaction from SCO, and they indicate they are sticking with Darl: "'We think they need to strengthen the senior team to get people with experience and background in the legal issues,' McGrath said. And if SCO addresses BayStar's concerns, the investor is open to reversing its redemption request, McGrath added.
"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.
"'We're interested in resolving any issues BayStar believes they have. We're ready to talk when they're ready to pick up the phone,' Stowell said. Regarding a replacement for Chief Executive Darl McBride or other top executives, he said, 'My belief is the members of our board are completely comfortable with the management we have in place now.'" Let's see how long that defiance lasts. $20 million can be mighty persuasive to folks like that. But they are essentially asking SCO to give up on UNIX and just be an IP litigation company. Goldfarb may not realize it, but if they did, their legal house of cards would take quite a hit, based as so much of it is on damage to their alleged core business, especially in the IBM case. But that is what BayStar wants: "'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.'" Ah, the 90s are back, with that old ka-ching dream of IP millions just from an IP portfolio. No product, no business, just litigation. It just goes to show you, taking other people's money is a good way to lose your independence. BayStar wants what it wants or it will take its marbles and go home. They assume that SCO can't afford to have them do that, so they are now starting to dictate the terms. How ironic. They are making an offer they think SCO can't refuse. Why, that's *SCO's* MO! How positively karmic. Evidently birds of a feather actually do flock together . . . after which, they begin to peck each others' eyes out.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
"Microsoft initially recommended that BayStar take a look at SCO."
That's new!
After the Anderer memo leak, the claim by SCO was that Microsoft had suggested
*to SCO* that they contact Baystar.
There was no admission that Microsoft contacted Baystar about SCO!
Now, we see that, in fact, not only did Microsoft refer SCO to Baystar, but they
recommded SCO to Baystar as well.
And of course, a "recommendation" from Microsoft to a small boutique
technology VC is hardly a deal you can refuse.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
Now Darl will get booted out of SCO and of course he will then sue SCO for
wrongful dismissal etc. I can't imagine anyone wanting to hire him now that
he's made such a name for himself as an incompetent litigious pain in the butt.
He'll probably end up running a patent scam.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Taco Bell is hiring... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Well, there's always McDonalds - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Poor Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- Pumping gas - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:41 AM EDT
- Pumping gas - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
- Pumping gas - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:26 AM EDT
- Poor Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- Silence is Golden - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Darl's next job? Congress - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- Poor Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- Poor Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- Darl's next job -- Microsoft? - Authored by: swengr on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:53 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mikeca on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
BayStar, he said, then did a lengthy assessment of SCO's
intellectual property claims and whether, if the dispute ever came to a jury
trial, the lawyer SCO has hired, David Boies, one of the nation's top
litigators, could win.
I wonder who did this legal assessment? I
wonder if BayStar still believes it.
I wonder if Baystar thinks that SCO
has not been able to find that System V code in Linux because Darl is spending
all his time attacking open source and the GPL?
I have worked in several
venture funded startups, and in high tech for more than 20 years. I never cease
to be amazed at how VCs make funding decisions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BayStar's Legal Assessement?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:05 AM EDT
- BayStar's Legal Assessement?? - Authored by: old joe on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- BayStar's Legal Assessement?? - Authored by: Sander on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:14 AM EDT
- Boies Is Such A Great Litigator - Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- VC assessments ... Anybody remember the internet bubble - Authored by: jaydee on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- OT: top litigator? In what alternate reality? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- Dice, chicken bones, ouiji boards, tea leaves... - Authored by: swengr on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:55 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mikeca on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:06 AM EDT |
This is a copyrighted story by the NYT. I would question if posting most of the
story here qualifies as fair use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
| "There is no disputing about tastes."
http:/
/www.sacklunch.net/Latin/D/degustibusnonestdisputandum.html
Just to
stop everyone to having to google for it.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
RBC has a large branch in Midtown Atlanta near Georgia Tech. I've been tossing
around the idea of having a little protest. Hopefully some unwanted attention
might cause them to consider their ways. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RBC - Authored by: EnragedBeaver on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:27 AM EDT
- RBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- RBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
[Copied from Yahoo SCOX board]
> Why BS still thinks the suit is winnable is beyond me.
I believe Baystar is not telling the whole truth. They dont want to admit in
public how stupid they were to jump into this. This would be really bad for
business. It would make their existing and prospective investors very nervous.
They are looking for excuses to get out of this relationship regardless of how
lame they may be. I mean why would Goldfarb be complaining about Darl's loud
mouth now? Darl has always had a loud mouth.
I find the following quote from SCO's Blake Stowell on news.com interesting:
"We're interested in resolving any issues BayStar believes they have. We're
ready to talk when they're ready to pick up the phone"
Baystar not picking up the phone? Does that sound to you like someone who is
looking to resolve issues? I think they are well past resolving issues with SCO.
They have given SCO 3 impossible tasks. Its just a nicer way of saying: "Go
to hell!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
"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."
Wow, if that's a direct quote, that's amazing. I
mean, isn't SCOG supposedly a Unix company? "You're spending too much money on
your actual business; you should focus more on being Microsoft's hand-puppet!"
:) ---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy
and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: yorkshireman on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:39 AM EDT |
I am not sure this is the full story.
Baystar didn't really want their money back they just wanted some management
changes and SCOX to stop selling their variants of UNIX.
Meanwhile the stock loses 30% of its value in 5 days.
I think we really need to see the exact text of this letter sent to SCO by
Baystar.
Meanwhile Microsoft seems to being mentioned more and more which is nice![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:04 AM EDT |
I think that Darl's compensation is quite appropriate given the central position
he has in the current company's strategy, as put forward by him.
In fact, nobody else has a useful place in that strategy, and that is the exact
reason why SCO should separate with him: there is not enough place for Darl and
any other SCO employees in a room. Small wonder he is travelling so much.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
SCO can't "win" the lawsuit, that's a given. But they still could
"win" the lawsuit if they persuaded someone to buy them.
IBM seems like it is not going to buy them. Who else would buy them? Microsoft
has said they only want to fund this from the back ground so they're not going
to buy them. I can't think of anyone else but there could be someone out
there...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:25 AM EDT |
Interesting to speculate on the timing WRT Robert Bench's
'retirement' announcement. Could he be the first Baystar
victim ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bystander on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
It would be interesting to know what SCO told BayStar about their IP holdings
and legal prospects during BayStar's lengthy investigation. Did SCO say they had
uncontested copyrights for Unix, and if so, for which versions? Did SCO say they
owned licensing rights for Unix, and did they divulge what percentage of
resulting licensing fees belonged to SCO? Did SCO show any actual proof that
properly copyrighted code was improperly transferred from Unix to Linux? Did SCO
explain their novel theories about how IBM automatically forfeited effective
control of their own work once it appeared in AIX?
It seems reasonable that BayStar must have relied on SCO to provide much of the
material used in their "investigation". Either SCO greatly exaggerated
the value of its IP claims, or BayStar was pinning its positive assessment more
on the reputation of Boies than on any sold legal basis. To avoid the appearance
of being foolishly driven and blinded by greed, BayStar's best tack now seems to
be accusing SCO of misrepresenting the strength of its case from the very
beginning, and then subsequently failing to honor commitments made in the
financing deal. Each of these purported actions give BayStar justification for
forcing redemption and recovering its investment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BayStar Speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- BayStar Speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:00 AM EDT |
"and spend less money on its Unix products"
They have a obligation to the
customer to fulfill. I think whatever they spend money on the unix products
whould'n matter to the case i guess.
Wondering what the effect is , of what we
are doing here?
"Mr. Goldfarb described a company that had become too engaged
in publicity and debate with the passionate advocates of the free Linux
operating system.:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
Does this mean SCO should sell its UNIXware business on and
concentrate on IP litigation?
With hindsight, would it not have been better for them to attempt this PRIOR
to this fiaSCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Value of Unixware - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:26 AM EDT
- such a sale - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:27 AM EDT
- BayStar Speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:59 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
"detailed for the first time what he regarded as the wayward corporate
behavior on SCO's part that led to the recent split"
I can't see what PIPE contract terms this relates to. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OK on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
Just out of curiosity (I am curious, but I cannot cure anything) I want to throw
couple questions.
What would be the average khem... "wage" for the CEO, president, and
CFO of a company with about 80 million annual revenue throughout U.S.?
I thought I was the only one staying that late. How many people do have insomnia
in this country? (Just kitting...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
"Mr. Goldfarb described a company that had become too engaged
in publicity and debate with the passionate advocates of the free Linux
operating system."
In other words SCO took on the Linux community....
AND LOST THE ARGUMENT!!!
HeeHee :-)
PJ, you should take a big pat on the back for your role in this!
All Together now.......1, 2, 3, 4....
"HAIL PJ
DOWN WITH OUR ENEMIES
GOD BLESS OPEN SOURCE AND ALL WHO USE IT
LONG LIVE LINUX
HAIL PJ"
PAUL, UK
xxx [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Here! Here! - Authored by: publius_REX on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:06 AM EDT
- "HAIL PJ" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- "HAIL PJ" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- "HAIL PJ" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: etmax on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
Let's just hope they keep Darl, never was there a more loyal Linux pioneer.
His continuous gaffs which worsen SCO's legal position and alienate their
primary investors are of such great value, we should give him a penguin T-shirt
when it falls in a heap.
Think of it, if SCO was running this show properly the case would go to court in
2005 giving MS time to get longhorn out and destroy another handful of
competitors, where as Darl is doing such a marvelous job this will probably all
be thrown out of court before mid year and Linux will rule.
(:-) (:-)
---
Max - Melbourne Australia[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: paul_cooke on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:29 AM EDT |
bit in the NYT article...
"Microsoft initially recommended that BayStar take a look
at SCO. But there is nothing unusual about that, Mr.
Goldfarb said. BayStar often talks to the investment and
venture arms of major technology companies like Microsoft,
Intel and Cisco. "It was evident that Microsoft had an
agenda," Mr. Goldfarb said."
evident??? how so? If it was evident then why did you take
up the recommendation??? You should have walked away very
quickly and let someone else be the Microsoft puppet...
Baystar will find that the "Gestank" of SCO & Microsoft is
very hard to remove...
---
Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
At least if they no longer had the Unix business, IBM would have no patent
claims against them.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Just Litigation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:40 AM EDT |
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d
Wonder when they'll be delisted..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:43 AM EDT |
Too... much... SCO news...
must... resist...
must... get .. some .. sleep.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
Put down your favourite beverage and swalow before clicking on this
message on SCOX Yahoo
discussion board
This link has apeared on groklaw today, but it was
burried inside a thread and was not clickable
Stano[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
It's just a kernel, and the legal challenges are all entirely based on it only
being a kernel too.
It is also not a variant of Unix, merely a work-alike one could say. The OS
GNU, "Gnu's Not Unix" makes this a fair bit more clear than the name
Linux does, which basically just sounds "like a variant of 'Unix'".
At least they didn't call it a "version of Unix" like other recent
stories have!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wynot Grokmore on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
| This jives with the "heise online" piece on April 20 (here) that was linked to
from Groklaw's "Why, Baystar, Why?" story. Heise online offered a preview of
the SCO investors' meeting on Tuesday this week, and suggested that the venture
capitalists wanted SCO to drop the failing Unix business and concentrate on the
lawsuit. Heise said that would mean the end of their careers for Darl McBride
and his team because they were spoiling the legal effort by running their mouths
("Für Darl McBride und seine Mannschaft wäre es freilich das Ende der Karriere.
Im Sinne einer optimalen Prozessmaschinerie haben sie sich in der Vergangenheit
zu häufig in der Öffentlichkeit mit gewagten Statements präsentiert."). The
heise piece does not mention any sources for this information, but somehow they
were able to scoop the NYT by several days on that particular topic. As things
turned out, it never came up at the stockholders' meeting, but it's interesting
that someone must have leaked the Baystar postition to heise before last
Tuesday.
Wynot [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
"Mr. Goldfarb described a company that had become too
engaged in publicity and debate with the passionate
advocates of the free Linux operating system. 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.
"'The real issue for us was spending and focus,' he
explained. The public statements from Darl McBride, SCO's
chief executive, were too frequent and too grand for
BayStar's liking."
Why did SCO disclose that BayStar had sent them a letter?
They didn't have to did they? This disagreement should
have been between SCO and BayStar.
Instead of discussing this with BayStar, SCO issues a
press release and their stocks goes down by 30%.
I don't see the logic in this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
A very telling quote from their spokesperson:
""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.""
So they bought into the SCO business model of profit through litigation,
obviously misled by SCO's dazzling vision of billions in IP ... and now they are
going to lose their money, possibly their reputations. I'm trying very hard to
feel sorry for them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
"The public statements from Darl McBride, SCO's chief
executive, were too frequent and too grand for BayStar's
liking."
YESSSS!!! YESSSS!! OH,
YESSSS!!! Darl McBride's Mouth Strikes Again!!
(Um... ahem...
sorry, got carried away there...)
---
"When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
"'The real issue for us was spending and focus,' he explained. The public
statements from Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, were too frequent and too
grand for BayStar's liking."
I read this as such: Darl and friends
blew the case by making too many enemies. They did an over-FUD, and exposed the
FUD for what it was. Baystar bought a FUD campaign, and SCO went over the top
and botched it. Now they are calling for a new FUD master, who might regain a
foothold again.
Now they have lost credibility, and will loose the
antilinux argument, and IP windfalls.
I see a motive in this beyond
investing in IP. Baystar here isn't saying anything substantive other than
discussing the FUD campaign.
The bit about we'd still like to play nice
with SCO is probably a hedge to help stop the stock bleeding.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
When companies are aligned, I wouldn't put too much stock in what the companys
say in public. We know none of the backroom stuff. My gut feeling is Baystar is
covering their butt if an investigation ever comes of Microsofts efforts to
continue to monopolize the operating systems industry by attempting to ruin its
competition/linux. What is 20 million these days when you are helping a very
good friend out. this is not an exact quote by Goethe[it is not where you are
at, it is in what direction you are headed. Where is Linux going and where is
Windows going. Great fun to watch and play. What a time to be alive. Marty [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BayStar Speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- stock buyback - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:39 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
You start out with your BS then you get More BS ... you know the rest.
The following is pure speculation; I can't actually prove it but it sounds more
plausible to me than Baystar does when they say that SCO has a hope with their
court cases.
SCO started out trying to get IBM to buy them out.
It didn't work and now they have a tiger by the tail.
Never mind, the bad guys can enrich themselves with a stock scam. In
particular, they can use Baystar's money for a share buyback. That enriches the
insiders at Baystar's expense. As anticipated, Baystar doesn't like that.
Baystar threatens to force SCO into bankrupcy. That means that a judge would
nullify the stock buyback and Baystar could recover their money. SCO won't
willingly give back the money though and they can make sure that if the insiders
don't get it, Baystar won't get it either. It's quite the poker game.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
Lohr still makes no mention of Novell's copyrights when he discusses SCO's
claims of Unix rights. Gotta get him to do that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TAZ6416 on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
"This is the screwiest thing I've ever seen. SCO has turned into a roller
coaster ride, and the outcome is less predictable now than it ever has
been" :)
Jonathan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
| Please shoot some holes in this theory:
Microsoft dumps money into SCO (and
gets investors to put money into SCO) for a major FUD terrorism campain.
SCO
doesn't understand their deal with Microsoft (or get greedy) and starts playing
up the idea of continuing Unix development. Maybe it isn't clear to Darl that
this new business model is the end game for the company?
In response, the
Microsoft crowd major investors make it clear that Darl and his
buddies need to be dropped in favor of more controllable puppets who will help
sink Unix completely (removing a major obstacle in Microsoft's server domination
plans).
Once its down to Windows vs. Linux, Windows should gain more market
share initially (it is more accepted than Linux in many companies for critical
servers).
All this time, Microsoft is sitting on patents (or pulling the
strings of other companies with patents) that can then start to tear apart
Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: be2weenthelines on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
Now we know why SCO released the Baystar letter, thereby trashing their stock
price. Its a little scorched earth revenge from Darl and his cronies. After
all, Baystar apparently wants his head (and to restrain his compensation) along
with those of some "other senior staff". If Darl and his buds can't
make money from this fud, then neither will anyone else.
be2
(I posted this as a reply elsewhere, but I wanted (it to get) more attention.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PrecisionBlogger on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
If SCO does what Baystar wants, and brings in a manageemnt that really
understands IP, the new management will tell Baystar there IS NO LEGAL CASE.
Wouldn't that be fun?
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
---
- Precision Blogger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdt on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
It may not be as simple for SCO to sell or terminate their UNIX product lines
as Baystar may hope.
That will depend on the detail of contracts with
SCO's large customers. I'd be surprised if these were retail sales, I'd more
expect an on-going arrangement for operating systems provision and
support.
If the other parties have done a good job then SCO will end up
warranting the ongoing support of its UNIX product lines even if the UNIX
product lines are sold. If the other parties were in a strong enough position
then that sale may even require prior approval. McDonalds, for one, have been
very quiet, one wonders if that is because they feel they have a solid
contract.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ljs on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
Baystar did in depth analysis of the legal position of SCO and decided they
could probably win. How could they not notice the type of statements coming from
Darl McBride and other management at SCO? Actually, he has been more quiet in
recent weeks than any time since this started. Yes, there are occasional
interviews but not flaming letters to congress and open letters to the Linux
community. The Open Source community was already mobilized against SCO before
Baystar joined in. That is not a recent development.
Did they not know how much money Mr. McBride would be making? That is public
record I believe. The other senior management members' experience and
backgrounds are well documented also. Baystar seems to put a lot of faith in
David Boies who has pretty much been invisible in recent months. Yet the legal
front has been pretty much a disaster. The best they have been able to do is put
a temporary slowdown on the RedHat case. There are no 'wins' at all so far for
them!
So, why say all these things in public? I am sure they have told them to SCO. Is
this a play to rescue the stock price? They are saying that given the right
changes, they will not pull the 20 million dollars out. That is a lot better for
SCO than the prospect of having it gone directly or being engaged in a lawsuit
with Baystar over the money. Now they can talk about negotiating a resolution
leaving the money there to pay lawyers. SCO is really good at stalling. This may
be the opening they needed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Newspapers pay for writing this good. You should consider a career as a
syndicated columnist? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
I am calling fraud on the lot. The conspiracy is no longer a theory! This
activity is ILLEGAL! The SEC should dig in and start proceedings against SCO,
Baystar, RBC, and Microsoft right now.
From the quotes:
"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."
"'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.'"
Combine this with the reports that Microsoft introduced both parties to each
other, and provided some funding in the form of license payments that did not go
to Novell per contract, and the picture is complete, dark brown, and stinks.
Folks, we now KNOW that Microsoft has conspired to intentionally harm
competitors in the market. They used Baystar and SCO to front for them, and
Boise (by name!) to handle the legal affairs as he was the one who hurt
Microsoft in their case.
Baystar intentionally used SCO to fight this campaign at the expense of SCOs
(admittedly failing) business. They never intended SCO to continue after the
payoff as evidenced by their complaint about the Unix business. Any company that
deliberately guts another to attack a third party is committing securities
fraud. Microsoft put them up to it, Baystar financed it, Boise ran it, and
McBride showed it.
I hope all their bank accounts burn in hell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fraud! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT
- Fraud! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Fraud! - Authored by: midav on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Write the SEC, your congressman, senator, etc. - Authored by: capitalist_pig on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- ..ok, who _owns_ the SEC and GWB? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- Fraud! - Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- Fraud! - Authored by: midav on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Fraud! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
I don't know if anyone else really noticed, but JP's last
lines are a work of art:
"Evidently birds of a feather actually do flock
together . . . after which, they begin to peck each
others' eyes out."
Bravo!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moogy on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
Some of us thought BayStar wanted out because they got tricked
into buying into a Fool's Gold Rush scheme, and wanted to cut
their losses and make corrections to salvage their own
credibility.
But now we are seeing that, even after so much detailed
information is available to not only BayStar but to all of us,
they believe in the Fool's Gold Rush so much that they even
want SCOG to drop everything and everyone else and concentrate
their resources on only that.
ie; BayStar is standing firmly behind the Fool's Gold Rush and
just not the methods, strategies and roadmap to the rainbow.
Now that's how to regain confidence in them!
.../me walks away scratching his head
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
Didn't someone here say follow the money? MS has the most to gain in keeping the
SCO FUD alive. The overwhelming consensus for the last couple of months has been
that SCO will not much of a legal case. In steps Baystar and threatens to back
out of the deal unless certain changes are made. The changes they want made all
have to do SCO becoming a pure play litigation business thus implying that, they
at least, believe FUD about SCO winning in court. Whether they do or not doesn't
matter as this will help keep the FUD going. Who benefits? Watch for DiDio's
take in the next few days.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Be careful that this isn't meant to be a "kiss and make
up" scheme.
Make negative noise so stock price dumps for a period.
Prolong it for publicity
Make a few statements back and forth (you suck, no you
suck)
Sun comes out both parties "kiss and make up"
Stock takes off again until the next scheme comes along.
I hope i'm wrong but this all looks a bit suspicious to
me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
| New items 139/140 on tuxrocks :here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: capitalist_pig on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
This could be a very bad thing. Up until now, we've had the amazing foot-eating
Darl running the show and generally making a big horse's ass out of himself at
every chance he gets. This has been a good thing, as it has ruined SCO's
credibility and polluted the space for their litigation.
Smart litigants keep their mouths shut.
What could be happening here is that Baystar and their.. ahem... silent backer
is getting worried that SCO is just not being professional enough. They might
be preparing to take charge of the whole thing and bring in some more
professional direction and control from people who really know how to run a
litigation machine.
This could be bad news. At the very least, it could prolong the FUD (which is
the whole reason for this thing to begin with.) Remember, Longhorn
("Microsoft Windows Lock-in Edition") is several years away. They
need a scarecrow in the market until then to keep big companies from
switching.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
Is anyone watching the stock price today? It has hit over 8 dollars (now at
8.00 +18%) with already double the average volume. Thats about $4million in
stock changing hands.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Let's bet - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- Stock Price - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- Stock Price - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- Stock Price - Authored by: jamesw on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
BayStar, it seems, would have preferred that managers pragmatically
focused on running the business, mostly out of the limelight. The BayStar view
was that courts would decide the validity of SCO's intellectual property claims
eventually, and that having the company's executives embroiled in a running
debate about the role of intellectual property rights was
counterproductive.
Yeah, and Darl started that when? Right
after the Baystar investment? Give me a break. Darl was running his mouth for
months before this investment.
"The issues for us were, first,
is the intellectual property claim valid, and if it went to a trial would David
Boies win or not?" Mr. Goldfarb explained. "Right, wrong or indifferent, it was
our position that we would prevail."
It is not possible,
literally, for someone to have done a thorough investigation, which would have
led them to Groklaw, and come to that conclusion. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
Actually, I think this is some of the better news we have had in a while. Not
better than IBM asking for declaratory judgment, but still pretty fun.
First, BayStar has admitted publicly that the investment was not based on any
sound principals, but simply on the chance of making money from questionable
litigation, and that they liked the lawyer running the case. While maybe having
no bearing per se on the legal case, it ought to be one more piece if
interesting info for the SEC to use.
Baystar claims whether the case is right/wrong or indifferent to actual valid
legal case, they thought they could make a buck. And no doubt this is what SCO
told them when convincing them to invest. I do recall a part of IBM's case being
about the case being a scam simply to make money and not really about IP
arguments. Might be worth IBM's time in subpeonaing BayStar execs and their
documents to find out what story they were being told by SCO as they invested.
It adds a lot more public weight to the moral argument of who is wrong. for the
same reasons as listed above...BayStar claimed they thought they liked the sound
of all the money they would make from litigation. Not necessarily wrong in and
of itself...but a moral win IMO.
taitbb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
Pamela demurs at `grand'; the writer may have aimed at `grandiose' &
missed.
See also 'Unix, which [SCO] holds the rights to.' For 'the', I suggest
`some'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
Step back for a minute. This really doesn't compute, UNLESS it's more FUD. In
this case, the highly respected investment firm (Baystar) gives interviews
saying that they backed SCOG's case against Linux. Most of the business world
will conclude there's really a case here; Baystar says so, and puts $20 million
where their mouth is. That's more FUD, but it's probably effective, and keeps up
the doubt about Linux, which is after all what the SCOap opera is all about.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
Look up the definition boys and girls. Part of what HEDGE funds do is short
stock. What better way for BayStar to manipulate the stock price down and pick
up some easy cash is to threaten to pull their investment in a public way. Now
the shorts are having to be covered which is driving the price back up. Who
knows how much they acquired at $6.80?
This is not atypical hedge behavoir. I'd sooner borrow from the mob. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jack on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
who shot darl mcbride uk soap opera(east enders)
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39152776,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
I just love this report from news com. EU report
details Microsoft's thinking. "The Windows API is so broad, so
deep, and so functional that most ISVs (independent software vendors) would be
crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many
Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating
system instead," Contorer's e-mail reads.
And then the last
part of the news report and I quote:
"In the commission's report,
Contorer's e-mail was also blunt about Microsoft's shortcomings.
"It is this
switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows
through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO (total cost of
ownership), our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties,"
the e-mail said. "Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, (but)
it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows
rather than force them to move."
The commission also quotes Microsoft Senior
Vice President Bob Muglia's internal memo to the Developer Tools division, dated
August 16, 1996, as saying: "In short, without this exclusive franchise called
the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."
Charles
---
Some Lawyers are just like bananas, they
are all crooked, yellow and slimy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Similar links - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- Wine project - Authored by: reuben on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:11 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
<<"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.">>
If SCO's strongest backers don't think there's much of a market for SCO Unix
products beyond what SCO already has, it sounds like they're shooting SCO and
themselves in the foot when it comes to actual damages assuming that SCO was to
win in court. If there's only a tiny potential market for SCO Unix, then there's
not much damage that could be done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
Baystar is doing pretty much exactly what TSG has been doing all along.
Both Baystar and TSG are playing out this war in the press. Both are using
the same playbook. This is trite PR in progress.
Think about the whole chaotic situation. Baystar could have privately made
their point to TSG management. But, that is not their objective at present.
Baystar is creating a public perception that
1) the American legal system overwhelmingly favors litigious rats
2) the legal merits have no effect on the outcome of these suits
3) Microsoft, Baystar, RBC, and hidden interests are fully supporting TSG
4) Baystar can change the outcome by replacing current TSG executives
5) Canopy is not driving these events
6) Linux/GNU will become shackled in spite of proven, complete innocence
This is how rats think, talk, plan, and organize. The bolder the rats become,
the more damage they can do and the more difficult it is to displace them.
These rats are undermining the whole American software industry. This
impacts the future in ways that hobble the country.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
The FUD campaign is building the longer Longhorn lingers.
The latest is from ZD ("Microsoft to Linux - 'Bring it on'). I don't like
to link to ZD directly (yes, I now how to create an <a href...) because I
don't see value in letting them pick up hits based on cheesy articles like this
one.
So, Microsoft wants Linux to 'Bring it on'? OK, here's the challenge back to
them. I'm pretty sure the community will be with me on this. Here is my:
10-POINT CHALLENGE TO MICROSOFT
'BRING IT ON' TESTING
Dear Microsoft,
The Linux community accepts your challenge. To assure the fair results that
we certainly all desire, we first challenge you to the following few basic
points. Let us know when you have them ready, so the games may begin:
1) Come clean. Really. Stop the FUD and misdirection. Stop the backdoor
attacks in the press, the boardroom, SCO headquarters and through the
questionable connections that have appeared in the past few weeks. Come clean,
and we may cut you some slack. Commit to wait to put out results until all the
results are in, and fairly reviewed by all parties. I suggest that your own
testing labs provide your review, and OSDL the Linux review.
2) Work with the community to find, fund, and empower independent testing
agencies.
3) Implement double-blind test strategies where possible. If you don't know
how to do that, OSDL can help you. The community would be willing to publish
test methods and standards - is Microsoft willing to do the same?
4) Commit to apples-to-apples comparisons, on equivalent hardware, network
connections, loading, etc. Suggested areas include standards compliance,
performance, and true TCO. I'm sure we can both think of others.
5) Open your interfaces. To the world. This is in accord with commitments
you made to support just and fair access in the antitrust suit which you lost.
The community is not asking you to open your code, just the interfaces. All of
them, including secret ones you use to hold back competition even on Windows.
Make this available to all developers so that fair tests can be made at all
levels. Publish it as openly as the open source community publishes their
interfaces and code. Publish it without restrictions, for example, under the
GPL. Commit to keeping it updated.
6) Commit to work with the community for the 'Bring It On' tests, as well as
with Windows-only developers who will benefit from (5), to publish factual,
honest test results, untainted and uncolored by marketing people. If Linux wins
in a given situation, commit to say so. If Windows wins in a given situation,
I'm quite certain the community will do the same (although they may then take
the challenge and improve that code, which we also invite you to do, a path that
can only lead to betterment of both products).
7) Commit to drop your patent claims on things like the FAT file system so
that computing, and computing access, can be freely shared by all people.
Likely you can, if you sit back and act honestly, think of other such claims
which do not benefit your friends, your foes, or the world at large.
8) Commit to adhere to international standards, and to work with standards
bodies when you see the opportunity or need to extend standards; then, commit to
unfettered and compliant access to those standards without licenses, fees, or
policies designed to hold back competitors. Commit to do it because it will
benefit your products and the world at large. Commit to get along with others.
You may be surprised to find out how far some true Good Will might go, with your
customers and with those who prefer alternatives.
9) Stop your assault on users and their data. Stop the DRM assault and
attempted lockdown of customers. Stop trying to keep customers from openly
using their own data and work. Adhere to open interfaces, publish them, and
work with them. Commit to interoperability testing, and data transfer models
such as OASIS. Remove spyware from your products and add the security needed to
prevent others from adding code that amounts to unreasonable search and seizure.
Admit to your weakness, especially in the areas of security; be a bit more
open, and perhaps the open source community may be able to help you do something
that your own teams have failed to do for far too many years - provide a safe
computing environment.
10) Agree to disagree, without the FUD and baloney that have been recent
hallmarks of your marketing team. Admit and understand that Linux is different,
built in a different way, in a different environment. Where we want to go today
may not be the same place you want to go today - but there is no reason to
attempt to stop us, as we do not attempt to stop you through similar
anticompetitive and antitrust antics. Work with us, and we'll work with you.
What do you say, Microsoft? Are you willing to accept the challenge of fair,
unbiased testing, reporting, and sharing of interoperability information? Can
the F/OSS community count on you to be a good corporate neighbor, an honest and
reformed convicted monopolist seriously interested in changing your ways? Will
you work with us to improve computing, and access to knowledge that benefits
mankind?
Absent such commitments, your request to 'Bring it on' rings hollow. Simple
honesty is the solution.
Let us know when you are truly ready for us to 'Bring it on'. Who knows but
that with an honest approach, you may actually gain some friends and improve
relations with your own customers too?
- A Linux user (with a couple of Windows machines too)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Haha. So, Baystar wouldn't give up its money. It was just a kind of threat. They
just send a letter and the stock plunges 3$ in 3 days. So, probably it is wise
to head this warning and boot Darl 'bigmouth' McBride. On the other hand they
want SCO to pursue the IP business more vehemently. Which could benefit only one
firm: M$. This is plain and simple, they want SCO talk less but squeeze even
more. I hope they all lose their dirty bets on this gamble.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
OK I am an addict, I confess, I need my Grok fix and I get bored when nothing
much changes between each refresh!
Paul, UK
------------------------------------------------------------
You know, I was wondering, just how many defensive arguements there are (if this
went to trial)
Trouble is I keep forgetting them! And when I remember one, I just start
laughing and say oh yeah! God this case is so entertaining.
I dont think anyone has made a definitive list (apart from maybe Novel, RH, IBM
etc and they will keep it to themselves) and I certainly cant do it by myself so
to get the ball rolling...
1) SCO have not demonstrated that Linux contains ANY infringing code.
2) SCO may not even own the copyrights to SYSV
3)
Strictly for those who are bored, keep it simple, and one at a time please.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: reuben on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
Goldfarb's statement that SCO's ostensible core business, Unix, is unlikely to
be worth pursuing any further seems to support the "nature of
counterclaims" and "background" section of IBM's counterclaims,
in which the litigation is characterized as a scheme for SCO's "unjust
enrichment" when its other businesses have failed. SCO always presents it
as simply protecting the value of its Unix business. Goldfarb's statement shows
that even their biggest backer does not buy that and is just hoping for unearned
plunder.
I would love to see that come up in court. Assuming SCO loses this will make it
hard to argue that they were acting in good faith to protect their business.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
The originally hinted/claimed that it was misrepresentation
on SCO's part,
which might be grounds for them getting their
money back. Now that they have, in
effect, blurted out that
they don't like the way things are going NOW, it seems
that they
have very much dilluted any refund claim based on
misrepresentation.
Wally Bass [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
As a stock market novice, SCO stock prices seem to defy gravity and go up on
bad news. Someone please explain to a novice like myself how this happens.
Powerful, invisible hands seem to be working with insider information?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
I would be willing to run SCO into the ground for 500 000 salary per year. I'd
save Baystar and SCO almost 450 000 dollars![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Probably do OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
comments from Dikephobic Darl that finally raised the alarm at Baystar. On the
other hand, it's not like there hasn't been an abundant and steady stream of
equally moronic piffle eminating from Lindon since day one.
It is hilarious
that Baystar would mention the fact that SCO's Unix biz is dead in the water -
is that supposed to help their case when they are claiming that that is where
the money is being lost? Also hilarious is that Baystar basically vindicate
IBM's position by stating flatly that the case is all about making money from
'IP' litigation.
Not content to hand IBM some shiny new ordinances to use
in court, they then tell us that MS pointed SCO out to them, completing the
circle with S2 (now we know who Darl sings Kumbayah with).
Baystar is
damaging the very case they bet their coin on with their announcements.
I
hate to say it, but, considering there apparent lack of research before the
investment and their subsequent shock at discovering what everyone else already
knew (dead Unix biz, insane CEO) coupled with their dunderheaded announcements
that work directly against the case they bet on, I wouldn't give them their
money back either.
In fact, I hope they're locked in. When they lose their
20 million, perhaps they will think twice before backing a turkey like Darl
again.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
So it seems the reason Baystar wants out of SCO investment is they thought SCO
would make a mint off of IP lawsuits and Darl is taking away those chances by
continually shooting his mouth off? In my estimation Darl never had a snowballs
chance in a blast furnace of making it work effectively. The whole thing was ill
conceived, poorly planned and thought out, and had no real legal basis for being
from the start. They have yet to prove their case, any of it. It is all smoke
and mirrors.
This whole idea of IP holding companies which do nothing but manufacture IP
landmines so they can blow peoples’ feet off with lawsuits makes my blood boil.
I think IP holding companies should be outlawed, and that all patents being used
for the sole or primary purpose of generating lawsuits should be summarily
invalidated. I put this whole idea of using IP rights as a weapon in the same
class as using a kitchen knife to rob somebody. It’s nothing but criminal
extortion and a gross abuse both of patents and of the legal system.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BayStar Speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
"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." (Mercury News)
"Ah, the 90s are back, with that old ka-ching dream of IP millions just
from an IP portfolio. No product, no business, just litigation." (PJ)
That was my first reaction too, PJ. However, I'd like to offer an even more
sinister possibility.
BayStar has blatently said that it wants SCO to do lawsuits and not UNIX
business.
This comes just a few days after Darl's Sky Radio infomercial
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040415034349123) where Darl says
that there is really only 2 server OS: UNIX and Windows.
SCO kills Linux. SCO doesn't develop its x86/itanium UNIX anymore. So who does
that leave for small server Operating Systems?
BayStar is effectively telling SCO that their job is to destroy MicroSoft's
competition in the small server (x86/itanium/amd64) market.
(Free,Open,Net)BSD remains, but I don't think MS considers them a real threat
right now (despite their technical strengths) and SCO has already made some
FUD-like statements about BSD and violations of the settlement (which, in
perfect SCO fashion, are presented w/o any sort of evidence).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
"Is it possible SCO is wanting to get out of the litigation, and BayStar
wants to hold them to the original plan?" PJ
Baystar's dreams die hard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
Let us assume that Microsoft is directing BayStar's involvement. They see the
case going badly. The best they could probably do at this stage is prevent the
case going ahead while leaving the impression that this was not because SCO had
no case, but because it was horribly mishandled. I am not saying that this is
what is happening, but nothing in the quotes I have read contradicts this
theory.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
"Mr. Goldfarb described a company that had become too engaged in publicity
and debate with the passionate advocates of the free Linux operating system.
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."
Why would SCO be doing any better in the IBM suit if SCO's management spent more
time on it? It is the lawyers who basically determine what they are doing in
the suit. Would the suit be going better if McBride made more input?
I think everything BayStar said was just a smokescreen. They want to cover up
the fact they made a bad investment. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
It's an excuse to get out, nothing more. C'mon folks, does BayStar really fear
the linux community's wrath this much? I doubt it. This company is very private,
never makes big public statements, they are just a behind the scenes investor
with deep pockets. So now suddenly they are in the news bashing SCO's management
and demanding their money back. There has to be a good reason to do this that
involves money, not image.
Bottom line I think is they have seen how foolhardy SCO management is and maybe
they have decided that SCO will shoot themselves in the head before IBM gets a
chance to in court, so they want their money back now. Rest assured, the goal is
to get reimbursed, not get rid of Darl. I'll bet they could care less what
happens to anyone in Utah so long as their money is preserved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
"'The real issue for us was spending and focus,' he [Lawrence Goldfarb]
explained. The public statements from Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, were
too frequent and too grand for BayStar's liking ... For his part, Mr. Goldfarb
said that with reforms in management practices to address BayStar's complaints,
it might keep its funds in SCO." PJ
What, no more open letters from the Darl? Baystar should get a clue that the
Darl has been running around like a headless chicken and looking haggard lately:
telling the Darl to shut off is like telling him to cut off his oxygen supply.
At this point in time, if an offer came along to the effect that he can talk all
he wants on the condition that he put his genitals on the chopping block, he'd
take it within a nanosecond. I think both Baystar and the Darl are living by the
Golden Rule, as in he or she who as the gold rules![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
