|
|
| SCO and BayStar Position for What Looks Like A Lawsuit in the Making |
 |
|
Friday, July 23 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT
|
SCO and BayStar are fighting again, and while I don't care if they sue each other from now to Doomsday and back, spending all their money in the process, SCO's press release is interesting because this time it indicates what it is that BayStar thinks SCO did wrong. I gather they feel they were duped into thinking the SCOsource license hustle was going to work, instead of it being "stalled and apparently doomed". That linked-to article in ServerWatch is interesting, by the way, and quite funny too. BayStar apparently sees a disparity between public and private statements about SCOsource "licensing opportunities" and they would like SCO to provide information "supporting the accuracy of SCO's recent public disclosures regarding its SCOsource business." Hahahahahaha. Get in line, Bub. SCO, naturally, delicately and honorably declines to comply because it feels it must "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information and the names of the companies engaged in SCOSource licensing discussions." Yes, their lips are always sealed when it comes to proving what their flapping lips have stated publicly. By the way, I think the mainstream media must be having a contest to see who can come up with the most Iraqi-Information-Minister-like quote from Blake Stowell. In any case, this would have to be the winner, hands down, Sam Varghese's, "SCO Satisfied with DaimlerChrysler Case Outcome." Yes, all SCO ever wanted, it turns out, was for DC to send them a nice letter. Yesterday, there was a report that SCO sent out 3,000 letters and only 1500 responded. Today, according to this article, SCO says the majority responded: "'The vast majority of these licensees responded that they were still holding to the terms of their license. SCO never heard from DaimlerChrysler. After repeated attempts to request their certification and after receiving no response, SCO filed litigation against DaimlerChrysler in March 2004,' the company said." Repeated attempts? Did they say that to the court? It's so hard to keep up with SCO's shifting sands. So all they wanted was a letter, and they are satisfied now with the outcome. And here you thought SCO got squished like a bug in that courtroom. It was actually a *victory* for SCO, you dolts. And the heads of the DaimlerChrysler infidels are on stakes lining the streets of Utah. Here is the SCO press release about the BayStar dispute.
*****************************
The SCO Group Announces Closing of Previously Announced Repurchase Transaction Between SCO and BayStar Capital
Friday July 23, 11:51 am ET
LINDON, Utah, July 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) announced today that the SEC has declared effective, as of July 21, 2004, SCO's registration statement relating to the resale of shares of common stock issuable to BayStar Capital II, L.P. This fulfills the only condition to closing the repurchase transaction under the stock repurchase agreement between SCO and BayStar dated May 31, 2004, which was previously announced on June 1, 2004. Accordingly, SCO has informed BayStar that it considers the repurchase transaction to be closed as of July 21, 2004.
Bay Star has notified SCO that it is BayStar's position that the repurchase transaction has not closed, pending resolution of claims by BayStar that SCO's recent public statements regarding SCOsource licensing opportunities are inconsistent with statements previously made by SCO to representatives of BayStar. SCO takes such questions very seriously and reaffirms the accuracy of its public disclosures concerning its SCOsource business and confirms its belief that such disclosures are not inconsistent with any confidential statements previously made to BayStar. As SCO previously has cautioned in its public disclosures, it has limited experience with its SCOsource licensing initiative, and projecting SCOsource revenue is difficult and subject to numerous risks and uncertainties.
BayStar has also claimed that it will not consider the repurchase transaction closed until SCO provides BayStar with confidential information supporting the accuracy of SCO's recent public disclosures regarding its SCOsource business. SCO has declined to provide the SCOsource information requested by BayStar in order to protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information and the names of the companies engaged in SCOsource licensing discussions and to avoid fostering speculation regarding its SCOsource business.
SCO believes that the stock repurchase agreement with BayStar is effective and binding, and observes that the issues raised by BayStar are neither conditions to closing nor the subject of any representations, warranties or other terms of that agreement. In connection with the closing, SCO has sent to BayStar a stock certificate representing 2,105,263 shares of SCO common stock and notified BayStar that is ready to deliver $13,000,000 in cash, constituting the balance of the repurchase consideration, upon receipt from BayStar of its wire transfer instructions.
SCO has requested BayStar to fulfill its obligations under the stock repurchase agreement to deliver to SCO the certificates for the 40,000 shares of SCO Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock upon closing, and has informed BayStar that SCO will, in any case, consider all such Series A-1 stock cancelled and no longer issued and outstanding, effective as of the closing on July 21, 2004.
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com.
SCO, and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
Source: SCO Group, Inc.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: haegarth on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Sorry, but I don't get that joke, could somebody tell me what PJ is referring
to?
---
MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
PJ, that was not very nicing pointing to this article and calling it funny:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3384091
:p[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
...and so the fallout begins.
It will be well and truly interesting to learn what exactly TSCOG DID represent
to BayStar - not to mention what some other birdies (the kind that live in
Redmond) whispered in their tiny shell-like vulture-cap ears.
A lot of companies operate in a reality-distortion field; for start-ups, that
kind of blind faith may well be obligatory. What's amazing about TSCOG is how
many different, mutually contradictory RDFs they are maintaining concurrently:
One each for the 5 - oops, 4 - court cases
One for private investors
One for public investors
One for the SEC
One for employees
One for Canopy and Yarrow
One for family and friends of TCSOG execs
And, no doubt, one meta-RDF for Darl to allow all the others to operate.
Have we done a psychological profile of Darl yet? Can we do one? The ability
to tell so many different lies at the same time strikes me as borderline
psychotic...or sociopathic.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
BayStar gave SCOX $50M (less broker's take).
TSG return on investment, at the current market price of $4.25/share:
$ 8,947,367.75
$13,000,000.00
---------------
$21,947,367.75
Oh, they also earned BayStar a lot of bad publicity.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Eeyore on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
If 1500 of 3000 replied, basic math would lead me to the conclusion that
"about half" replied. Now my statistics skills are a bit rusty but
isn't the definition of "vast majority" something higher than exactly
50%? Or are they saying that since DC responded they now have 1501, so it's A
majority? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
SCO and BayStar Involved in lawsuits! I'm Shocked!
An innovative technology company like The SCO Group involved in a lawsuit? I'm
shocked.
I thought that such a leader in the UNIX(r) world would not waste time and
effort on lawsuits. They should write off any losses and turn their vast
resources towards making huge profits by delivering innovative cutting edge
software. As leaders they need to set a good example for lesser corporations to
follow.
And the venture capitolists at BayStar should know that being a venture
capitolist is inherently risky. They should not spend good money after bad,
digging a hole even deeper in an effort to flog a dead horse of an investment.
No siree. Adventurous entrepenours like BayStar should cut their losses and move
on to new horizons.
It is just so unlikeley that these companies would be interested in any form of
litigation, that I'm shocked by the outrageousness of it all![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirFozzie on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
(wot, them too? :D)
Baystar Capital Announces Repurchase Transaction With the SCO Group, Inc. Has
Not Closed
Friday July 23, 1:56 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO, July 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- BayStar Capital today announced
that, despite a prior announcement by The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News)
to the contrary, the transactions contemplated by the Stock Repurchase Agreement
by and between BayStar and SCO, dated as of May 31, 2004, have not closed due to
an unresolved dispute between the parties. BayStar intends to file an action
requesting a declaratory judgment with respect to its rights under the Stock
Repurchase Agreement. Until a final determination is made by the court, BayStar
maintains its position as a Series A-1 Preferred stockholder of SCO.
Source: BayStar Capital[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: frk3 on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
Maybe it is me, but seems like the "confidential" represnetations TSG made to
Baystar compared to their "public" statements would be very enlightening to the
SEC and similar authorities. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
As history shows, if your a thug, trusting other thugs is a bad idea. and we
have MS to thank for providing the "history" in question.
How many companies went into "Arrangements" with MS to later find that
MS had stolen the blanket from under them and run with it?
Well, SCO gets lottsa money via questionable promises to BayStar, and now that
the truth is revealed, Baystar acts surprised that they were taken for a ride.
When you are a thug, you shouldn't trust anyone else, particularly other thugs.
Self promotion is the name of the game in such cases.
regards
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atul on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
There's probably no cash to be had in suing SCO at this point, but I have to
wonder whether BS might have a case against the Beast of Redmond. MS, after
all, introduced Baystar to SCO. Recall that MS is a longstanding Unix licensee
(stretching way, way back to the Xenix era), and was in a clear position to
evaluate SCO's "IP" claims. Clearly, MS wanted someone to invest in
SCO in the hope it would damage Linux, not because they thought SCO was a good
investment on its own merits. If MS in any way misrepresented the strength of
SCO's claims to Baystar, in order to get them to invest in the company, I can
see BS at least attempting to sue Microsoft over it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
"By the way, I think the mainstream media must be having a
contest to see who can come up with the most
Iraqi-Information-Minister-like quote from Blake Stowell."
LOL. Great stuff, Pamela, truly great stuff.
Nick :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
Have you ever watched a sports team fall apart when they know they are going to
loose. They either accept the result in good grace or they try to blame each
other. I've seen players end up in a fight because they blame each other. This
is what is happening, just watch a film of a similar event which I am sure
sports enthusiasts can show you. It's an absolute classic. German Generals did
this when they knew they were going to loose the last war. I'd call it
"Looser syndrome". What ever. This is the "beginning of the
end".
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
I predict that by the time this is all over, at least one person will go to
prison (or take a criminal plea) that is affiliated with SCO. Whether that be
Anderer, Darl, Goldfarb or whomever, it sounds like this is creating one huge
mess and that some people out there have some dirt they can dish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: om1er on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
This reminds me of the movie "The Rock" with Sean Connery and Nicholas
Cage. The bad guys try to run an extortion, and near the end, when their plans
go all wrong, they wind up shooting each other.
Baystar got ripped off badly, and are not at all pleased about it, as far as I
can tell. It appears that Baystar is seeking revenge, and SCOG wants to play
mean.
Darl McBride, this might be a really good time to leave the country, because it
is all going downhill after this. You won't miss much if you leave now, other
than a raking through the coals. Since you haven't been indicted yet, it won't
be viewed as flight from prosecution.
Of course, Darl, I am not a lawyer - you might want to ask a real one. Invite
him/her over to watch "The Rock" with you!
Bye!
---
Are we there yet?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Did anyone besides me notice that the "About SCO" footnote made no
mention of UNIX, other than it being a trademark of the Open Group? Didn't they
previously tout themselves as the exclusive licensor/source/whatever of UNIX?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
| http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040723/sff025_1.html
or
Clicky
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Is something up with SCOX stock?
At this moment Yahoo real-time shows no trades since 1:51pm (it's been just over
half an hour and the market is open, so even on thinly traded stock this is
quite a long time)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=SCOX
The BayStar press release is timed 1:56pm in PR newswire
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
"...July 23...The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) announced
today..."
So, what happened to
"...Jul 19, 2004...The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the
UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based
solutions..."
Think maybe they finally got a clue? Naw, couldn't be.
---
carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jre on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Some statements are almost too rich to parody:
... projecting
SCOsource revenue is difficult and subject to numerous risks and
uncertainties.
One being the possibility of the whole world
telling you to go Cheney yourself, I presume ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kaemaril on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
I hope that SCO are foolish enough to proceed with DC on their limited
discovery regarding whether or not the 30 days is reasonable, or what not.
Because I'd love to see the phrase "After repeated attempts to request their
certification and after receiving no response" appear in discovery and have a DC
lawyer asking for clarification on exactly what that meant, given that SCO sent
ONE letter... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Eeyore on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
| Baaaaahahahahaahaha.... at least someone has a clue (unlike the poor sap that's
trying to dump 100 at $25). Heck, I might even buy a couple of dollars
worth of SCO stock at a penny a share...... then again, no I wouldn't. Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fcw on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
Let me get this straight. TSCOG, a company presently involved in multiple law
suits that hinge on disagreements over the meaning of contract terms, is now in
another dispute over the meaning of a contract that was drawn up
after all the other contract disputes flared up,.
A disinterested
observer might think that, in such circumstances, TSCOG ought to have been
super-diligent about creating a clear, unambiguous contract with their financial
saviours, to the best of their legal team's abilities.
Consequently,
that same disinterested observer would now be forgiven for concluding that their
hiring practices seem capable of identifying precisely those lawyers who
can read and write contracts, and then not hiring them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
"By the way, I think the mainstream media must be having a contest to see
who can come up with the most Iraqi-Information-Minister-like quote from Blake
Stowell."
I always thought that this was more like the parrot sketch from Month Python.
"It's dead."
"No, it's not."
Tim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
I can't think of too many technology companies that don't have somewhere --
whether in their magazine advertisements, web pages, trade show pamphlets,
whatever -- a list of customers who were so thrilled with their product that
they were willing to tell the world how pleased they were with it by allowing
their name to be used in the vendor's advertising campaign.
Why is it that
SCO's customers are so embarassed that they do not want their company name
mentioned in the same breath as SCO let alone appearing in some promotional
materials?
Aw, heck don't answer that question. I already know two potential
answera: Either they don't want to be seen as fools or they don't exist. And I
suspect that both are right. There aren't as many as SCO would have everyone
believe (i.e., they don't exist) and the few that do exist are unwilling
to be seen as fools.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
Here's two paragraphs in SCO's press release.
I think you will find
that it's not entirely self-consistent, and attempts to re-spin BayStar's claim
away from what it really is.
BayStar has notified SCO that it is
BayStar's position that the
repurchase
transaction has not
closed, pending
resolution of claims
by BayStar that
SCO's recent public
statements regarding
SCOsource
licensing opportunities are
inconsistent with statements
previously made by SCO to
representatives of BayStar. SCO
takes such questions very seriously
and
reaffirms the accuracy of its
public
disclosures concerning its
SCOsource
business and confirms
its belief that
such disclosures are
not inconsistent
with any confidential
statements
previously made to
BayStar. As SCO
previously has
cautioned in its public disclosures, it has limited experience
with its SCOsource
licensing initiative, and projecting SCOsource revenue is
difficult and subject to
numerous risks and uncertainties.
BayStar
has also claimed that it will not consider the repurchase transaction closed
until SCO provides BayStar with confidential information supporting the accuracy
of
SCO's recent public disclosures regarding its SCOsource business. SCO has
declined
to provide the SCOsource information requested by BayStar in order to
protect the
confidential and proprietary nature of the information and the
names of the companies
engaged in SCOsource licensing discussions and to avoid
fostering speculation
regarding its SCOsource business.
Let's go
thru that sentence by sentence...
BayStar has notified SCO that it
is
BayStar's position that the
repurchase transaction has not
closed, pending resolution of claims
by BayStar that SCO's recent public
statements regarding SCOsource
licensing opportunities are
inconsistent with statements
previously
made by SCO to
representatives of
BayStar.
i.e. 1. BayStar says SCO's recent public statements are
inconsistent with previously made non-public statements.
SCO
takes such questions very seriously
and reaffirms the accuracy of its
public disclosures concerning its
SCOsource business and confirms
its belief that such disclosures are
not inconsistent with any confidential
statements previously made to
BayStar
i.e. 2. SCO say its public statements are accurate, and
believes its public statements are consistent with its non-public
statements.
As SCO previously has
cautioned in its public
disclosures, it has limited experience with its SCOsource
licensing initiative,
and projecting SCOsource revenue is difficult and subject to
numerous risks and
uncertainties.
i.e. 3. But SCO isn't really too sure about the
SCOsource business in general
BayStar has also claimed that it
will not consider the repurchase transaction closed
until SCO provides BayStar
with confidential information supporting the accuracy of
SCO's recent public
disclosures regarding its SCOsource business.
i.e. 4. According
to SCO, BayStar is requesting proof of SCO's recent public
statements
Well, if you look at point #1, it does NOT
seem to me that BayStar is requesting proof of
"SCO's recent public disclosures"
(SCO's claim in point #4).
It seems far more likely, that BayStar is
asking why we were promised something in private that is so
very different than
from what your SCOsource results ("public disclosures") turned out to be.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
Is BayStar after a few million more dollars? Are they threatening to sue and
derail the FUDwagon because SCO won't pay back as much as possible now?
...or...
They are asking for information. They want to be intrumental in outing SCO.
This would deflect from their blame for sponsoring this madness.
These are the only two theories I can think of: more money or avoiding greater
liability, culpability down the road. [The other possible theory, protecting M$
isn't flying at the moment since they have readily confirmed M$ contacts.]
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
They sue their customers, they sue their investors. Next thing you know McBride
will sue his mother. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: haegarth on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
I have to admit that, obviously, I seem to share your definition. Still OT, but
let me put it this way: I don't condemn self defense when I'm personally
attacked, but I don't attack people myself. Hardcore pacifists would probably
not even defend themselves under these circumstances (and might still prevail,
like Gandhi did).
So you're right, after 'official' standards I'm not a pacifist either.
Now if we don't consider single persons, but whole societies, they should also
have the right to protect themselves.
Considering that, WWII still was absolutely immoral from the start, but
protecting one's society from the aggression (starting after PEARL Harbour in
case of the US) seems absolutely acceptable to me.
But STARTING a war isn't.
Germans did that at least twice. We should never do that again.
The question is: who should? In my opinion: Absolutely no-one.
When is self defense justifiable? In the case of the war against Iraq I've never
been sure, and after watching Fahrenheit 911 I really doubt the cause of that
war, and it looks as if the American people have been pushed into it by a
minority. But since I live in Germany and not in the United States, you should
take my opinion as an outsider's perception, nothing more. In case you're
interested, most of the people around here seem to share that opinion.
Yes, I know it was NY where those planes crashed into the twin towers and not
somewhere in Germany, but we were disgusted and angry, too, and evidence
suggests that this had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq....
But enough, we're getting political, and this is not the place for this kind of
discussion.
Sorry PJ.
---
MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Sunday, July 25 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Here's a point to consider. The judge very clearly in this case stated SCO had
no possibility to win their claims based on their interpretation (or blatant
morphing, you pick) of the license agreement's certification requiremens. In
essence, what it says on the piece of paper is what it says, period.
Now SCO did admit in their filing that the license was unambiguous and in doing
so pretty much submarined their own case.
Now look at SCO v Novell which is going to come down to contract interpretation.
Yet again another contract to which SCO (SCOX) was not involved with but which
they inherited from oldSCO (now Tarantella). In order to advance their claim
against Novell they have to prove they own the copyrights which means the 1st
argument that comes up is whether the APA as ammended transferred the
copyrights.
SCO is in a catch 22. They pretty much have to argue the contract is unambiguous
for their case to succeed because they claim it outright says that they received
the copyrights. Rememeber there must be a conveyance and the APA is it according
to SCO. If the APA is ambiguous then the entire action has no merit because
there is no clear transfer of title.
With SCO so arguing, Novell will simply cite relevant sections as well as the
excluded asset schedule and say this doesn't transfer copyrights, in fact they
are excluded, and SCO already said the contract is unambiguous. Thus up to the
court to decide what the contract says in plain english, and I think we all know
where that will go.
So, after pretty much flopping on their face in trying to "re-write"
license history, anyone think they may think twice about pursuing Novell? Or at
least re-think the strategy and change the claim to something other than slander
of title?
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
