And where everyone thought that BayStar pulled out their investment off SCO because they didn't like the bad press and any SCO involvement, it seems to be the exact opposite: they want to see even more IP enforcement from SCO! "It's questionable whether SCO Group should continue in the (Unix) market," BayStar's spokesman Bob McGrath said. "We're looking for the best return we can, and we think the focus should be on IP licensing (and enforcement)."
Post a Comment
sue them. all of them. what faster way to bring patent reform then to totally abuse them.
How expensive can it really be to license UNIX to SUN, HP, IBM etc? I thought the point was that SCO was trying to go after Linux to keep their UNIX market. If SCO decides to destro their UNIX market to better help them destroy Linux does it really help the consumer?
No one can destory open source software (Linux). But, you can sure slow it down to "*BSD is dead" level.
Baystar wants SCO to give up on 11 million last quarter of revnue, in exchange for $20,000 in shared source revnue.
Red flags anyone??? Baystar wants SCO to fire all but a couple dozen employee's to be able to survive long enough to finish the IBM case. Since very few other cases will be allowed until after IBM,and Novell where is SCO going to get cash. I highly doubt there will be anyone else buying a SCO IP license until after IBM & Novell. That leaves SCO dependant on the omeny in the bank, hat is already less than what they owe to Baystar & RBC.
Something doesn't make sense here. Baystar is trying to get out of something what it is I don't know.
Baystar is black-mailing SCO into focusing in the Linux-fight, despite the fact that it already looks like a lost cause. The injunction to replace the loud-mouthed SCO top guys by more professional/joung guys and to dump dead unixware for give Licensing Intellectual property is a sound suggestion, but it doesn't alter the fact that Baystar's real goal is.......mmmh....if I had to guess I would say.....delaying/casting doubts about linux....cause they can't hope to win a law suit against IBM with such a poor case. And Sco won't make any business after they lose the IBM law suit.... too bad for them but... Well...Wasn't SCO a decoy in the first place ?
By the way, isn't it stupid from baystar to make sco's stock lose money the way they did ?
baystar is greedy. Yes seems like the "do this or we take the money away".
Oddly enough, this should be a good idea for SCO to possibily file suit against BayStar themselves!
I don't it does seem stupid to shake SCO up then again, maybe Baystar did it to force SCO into consessions.
Look what we can do with a simple paragraph! Then when things are better at the bargaining table, they jack the price back up on the low volume float.
Even Baystar must know what eveidence SCO gave IBM, if Baystar isn't smart enough to know that SCO is hoodwinking them on this case they deserve to get burned.
Microsoft have pushed Baystar the pit that SCO dug and now they're having to climb out via the only seemingly possible exit by digging through to the other side of the earth with their hands
"No one can destory open source software (Linux). But, you can sure slow it down to "*BSD is dead" level."
Nobody can destroy open source. No doubt in my mind.
What can be done is spreading enough fear within the business community as to render OSS unattractive. To a limited degree they have successfully done so. Business customers don't read the same news stories many of us do. They see what the Wall Street Journal and print media, decides to publish.
The companies who have agreed to accept liability from IP claims are to be commended, however this only serves as damage control and stops a long ways short of providing business with a warm feeling.
Independent speculation on the outcome of lawsuits is extremely foolish. The U.S. court system has been repeated proven to be far from predictable.
BAH!
Innovation is alive and well in the various BSD, despite what many Linux companies, slashdot, and ect would have you believe.
Maybe the time has come to push SCO out of the picture by pressing them to sell out their ownership of Unit to an entity that is controled by someone who has the money to see the law suits through to the end? Maybe to someone who is controled by Redmond interest? Maybe?
"Baystar wants SCO to give up on 11 million last quarter of revnue, in exchange for $20,000 in shared source revnue. "
That doesnt make any sense. There investment is $20 MILLION not thousand. Baystar is really just trying to get more control of SCO. They are 'blackmailing' SCO to the point of them giving up control of their own company to Baystar so Baystar can run the show and focus on Linux bashing. They wont get their money back without a fight, a HUGE fight, and they know that.
don't trust bankers. they are the cause of a good deal of suffering and their amoral approach to life is questionable at best.
Bankers will do anything for a buck...literally.
Baystar is an investiment company. They problably have investiments in other IT companies other than SCO. So, if SCO wins [but destroys it own market] other Baystar companies can use it to enforce IP against other companies/OSS.
Am I paranoid yet?
The $20,000 Peragrin is referring to is the revenue made from ScoSource last year. He's not talking about the $20 million from BayStar.
Memo to BayStar: It doesn't matter what SCO does or if you change the management. If you have No case, you ain't gonna win, no matter jow much you concentrate on IP claims.
Ah ok!
Well either way...Its not gonna get its money back, nor does it want/expect it back. It wants more control. Plain and simple!
Re: Jim
How expensive can it really be to license UNIX to SUN, HP, IBM etc? I thought the point was that SCO was trying to go after Linux to keep their UNIX market. If SCO decides to destro their UNIX market to better help them destroy Linux does it really help the consumer?
According to the sale novell made, novell gets like 90% royalties on all past unix licenses and sco only gets revenue on new deals, so they dont make much from it
I still want to know if SCO has offered up the exact lines of code they say Linux is using unlawfully? If that's not going to happen, then who the hell cares about this whole story? Wake me up when they have an actual case to argue.
About his time last year any news about SCO would bring out the long knives. What ever happened to those message board lawyers who scolded the Linux crowd with their superior knowledge of IP, Unix , and tea leaves?
Exactly, Baystar wants SCO to abandon an $11 million revenue stream (albeit a dwindling stream) in favour of a revenue stream that only brought in 20 grand, and has cost $10 in litigation already.
I didn't think "hedge fund" meant "idiotic contrarianism". Baystar is proving me wrong.
Based on my past experience with investors I'd say that Baystar has now realized that SCO has no case and that they've been had. Of course, that's not what they're going to say in public. Investors NEVER admit to making stupid decisions. Their "sure thing" always goes down the toilet because somebody else screwed up.
They probably took one look at SCO's dog and pony show (the one with "evidence" that has the experts laughing) and got out the checkbook.
SCO shouldn't give back a penny. Baystar deserves to lose the money and so does RBC.
Quoting myself from a previous comment:
"Independent speculation on the outcome of lawsuits is extremely foolish. The U.S. court system has been repeated proven to be far from predictable."
In other words: You and I are not the ones making the decisions here, and our opinions whether you like it or not means absolutely nothing.
Someone with little computer background or at least a lesser amount than the geeks here is going to decide this "thing". Big mistake to assume what the actions of others might be. It going to be a very interesting judgement.
Hedge funds invest with only one purpose in mind, to make a return on their investment. As long as it is legal, they will do anything and everything in their power to ensure that their investment objectives are met. They have absolutely no interest in SCO as a company as it will cease to exist in its current form at the conclusion of the lawsuits regardless of the outcome. They have absolutely no responsibility to current shareholders of SCO and are loyal only to their own investors. The $11m of current revenue means nothing to them. Current customers of SCO are of no use to them either.
If anyone hasn't figured it out yet, Baystar's intentions are crystal clear. They are telling SCO to quit pretending they are a viable business and allocate all resources to 1) winning the court cases; 2) settling out of court with the litigants at a large profit to SCO's investors; 3) selling SCO and it's IP assets to one of the litigants at a large profit to SCO investors.
In SCO's case, allocating resources means don't spend money unless it is on lawyers fees. No need for executive salaries and no need for executive travel. Current executives have to shut up because everytime they open their mouths they say something that damages the probability of Baystar achieving their desired outcome.
I'm not sure if Baystar is interested in the long wrong in damaging Linux. I'm actually starting to think that Baystar is an investment company who may have seen market indicators showing that Unix and Linux servers are showing continual market share increase, and wants a piece of the action at bargain basement prices.
If Baystar forces SCO to stick to their suicidal course long enough, they may be hoping to force share prices down due to FUD, and then buy stock at lower prices in various companies marketing *nix products(Novell, IBM, Apple, Redhat...) so that when SCO dies/loses and the prices go up again they have profited from a little bit of havoc.
I wouldn't be surprised if MS has their hands in this either, as they would hardly want to openly invest in products which they have stated are "inferior", "non-innovative", or are their "main competition". To do that would be to invite doubts by their investors who are already chafing at the long delay for the release of a new flagship OS.
Just my $.02, but IMO bankers/investment brokers don't just hand out cash without a plan on how they intend to collect...with interest.
I'm not sure if Baystar is interested in the long wrong in damaging Linux, or even recovering their money directly from SCO...
If Baystar is indeed a "hedge" fund. Buying up stock in the companies you mention would be an excellent hedge. They could profit regardless the outcome.
One important point I forgot to mention about Hedge Funds is that they would be incompetant (or just plain stupid) to invest funds without an exit strategy. I believe they are just executing their plan.
You have hit the nail on the head.
*BSD _is_ alive and kicking. But at the beginning of the 90-ties they were nearly sued to death. And now they are trying to do the same to linux. There was no flame intended.
Devide and conquer. Don't participate in it. GNU needs BSD, just like BSD needs GNU.
Good luck with that resume Darl, you do know that you will never do anything but flip burgers EVER AGAIN. HAHAHAHA