BayStar Cashes Out of SCO Stock 524
Kurt Wall writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, BayStar, the company that funded SCO to the tune of $50,000,000, and then later changed the terms of the deal, has requested that SCO redeem the 20,000 shares of preferred stock issued in return for the funding. The reason? BayStar states that 'SCO has allegedly breached Sections 2(b)(v), 2(b)(viii) and 3(g) of the Exchange Agreement.' Naturally, SCO thinks it has done nothing of the sort."
Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, looks like you live by the sword you die by the sword. It was after all Darl who stated "Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with". None of this using contracts to clarify just what each other's purposes are, and being a record of an agreement, they're to be used as weapons. SCO's breaches are what will come bite them on the ass, and nothing will save them with a contract that they can't hide way back in the muddying of time. $20million worth of redeemed stock is $20million SCO can't use against Linux, Customers, Ex Customers or whoever else has tried to be nice to them in the past.
It's only a few hour's drive to Lindon from here. I wonder if I should go watch the fireworks.
Shak's nude anime gallery [67.160.223.119]
karma (Score:5, Funny)
"BayStar's letter did not provide specific information regarding SCO's alleged breaches of the Exchange Agreement. SCO is attempting to obtain specific information from BayStar"
Re:karma (Score:5, Funny)
Re:karma (Score:4, Funny)
"It's in there, and we know where; but we'll only tell you if you sign this non-disclosure agreement."
Re:karma (Score:5, Informative)
MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:4, Funny)
Visit my website! [127.0.0.1]
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah right as you go and post a link to yours on the end.
Beware I'm about to DDoS your site for the next 24 hours. That'll learn ya!
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:5, Funny)
What a looser... He's running OpenBSD 3.2 - just like me. He diden't apply the OpenSSH patches and I got right in. I'll just rm -r / [NO CARRIER]
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:4, Funny)
Not only that..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not only that..... (Score:5, Funny)
At least you get 'em for free. I had to buy them.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN spam in .sig (Score:5, Funny)
He must really hate me since I appear to be blocked from viewing it -- but everyone else on this thread seem to be laughing till the spit milk out of their noses, based on all the funny moderation going on.
I feel left out!
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been a Good Day.
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Funny)
Then when their stock finally tanks, they'll sue their own shareholders! [150.101.104.20]
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny thing, is that it could happen.
"Owner of the UNIX Operating System" (Score:5, Informative)
They're still talking out of both sides of their mouth though. They still claim in their press release that they are, "the Owner of the UNIX Operating System."
Funny that they are the ones announcing BayStar putting the pinch on them. Guess they want to put the "positive spin" on it, just like everything else...
Re:"Owner of the UNIX Operating System" (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and I suspect that if any insiders dumped a bunch of stock today without announcing it would be eligable for a perp walk.
Re:"Owner of the UNIX Operating System" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Owner of the UNIX Operating System" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimers:
1) I am not an investment banker.
2) I have no idea what the precise lending terms were; on the other hand, I'm confident that the people behind "talk on the boards" also have no idea.
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Informative)
1. SCO lied about their status
2. SCO didn't disclose everything about their status
3. There was disparity between press releases and the truth
Sounds like what we knew all along...
(The sections that baystar claim have been breached are:-
2(b)(v)
(v) Original Purchase Agreement. Excluding the representations and warranties set forth in Sections 3(a), (b), (d), (e), (i), (y) and (z) of the Original Purchase Agreement, the representations and warranties of the Company set forth in Section 3 of the Original Purchase Agreement (the "Original Representations and Warranties") are each true and correct as of the Closing Date, in each case as if made on the Closing Date.
2(b)(viii)
(viii) Disclosure. All information relating to or concerning the Company and/or any of its Subsidiaries set forth in this Agreement or provided to the Purchasers in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby is true and correct in all material respects, and the Company has not omitted to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made herein or therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. No event or circumstance has occurred or exists with respect to the Company or its Subsidiaries or their respective businesses, properties, prospects, operations and financial conditions, which has not been publicly disclosed but, under applicable law, rule or regulation, would now be required to be disclosed by the Company in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.
3(g)
(g) Press Release; Publicity. The Company shall issue a press release (the "Press Release") describing in reasonable detail the transactions contemplated hereby as soon as practicable on or after the date hereof, but in no event later than the commencement of the first trading day following the date hereof. The Press Release shall be subject to prior review and comment from BayStar Capital II, LP ("BayStar"). Within two days after the Closing Date, the Company shall file a Form 8-K with the SEC concerning this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, which Form 8-K shall attach this Agreement as an exhibit to such Form 8-K (the "8-K Filing"). From and after the Press Release, the Company hereby acknowledges that no Purchaser shall be in possession of any material nonpublic information received from the Company, any of its subsidiaries or any of its respective officers, directors, employees or agents, that is not disclosed in the Press Release. The Company shall not, and shall cause each of its subsidiaries and its and each of their respective officers, directors, employees and agents not to, provide any Purchaser with any material nonpublic information regarding the Company or any of its subsidiaries from and after the Press Release without the express written consent of such Purchaser; provided, however, that a Purchaser that exercises its rights under Section 4(n) of the Original Purchase Agreement shall be deemed to have given such express written consent. No Purchaser shall have any liability to the Company, its subsidiaries or any of its or their respective officers, directors, employees, shareholders or agents for any such disclosure. Subject to the foregoing, neither the Company nor any Purchaser shall issue any press releases or any other public statements with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby; provided, however, that the Company shall be entitled, without the prior approval of any Purchaser, to make any press
It could probably be summed up in one line (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Informative)
Original Agreement [sec.gov]
Modified Agreement [sec.gov]
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the connections that Baystar has with MS/Paul Alen et al, There has to be an angle that makes it worthwhile for them. Also remember that it was SCO that issued a press release with this bit of info. When was the last time they issued a pr with any info that showed them in a bad light?
One possible scenario is that our friends at Canopy/MS have decided to pull the plug and bankrupt/kill SCO before IBM pierces the corporate veil and sends a bunch of execs to sing-sing (or at least gets a court to find them personally liable for SCO's misdeeds.)
cheers- raga
Re:Why they'd be doing this now? (Score:4, Insightful)
PREFERRED Stock (Score:5, Informative)
These shares value is set at $1000 each... so this is quite a big chunk out of SCO's warchest...
Happy day!
Re:PREFERRED Stock (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO ON SALE! (Score:5, Funny)
Woo, SCO's stock [yahoo.com] is down 10.56% already. What a great time for a shrewd investor to buy SCO stock at bargain prices!
Re:SCO ON SALE! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SCO ON SALE! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO ON SALE! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SCO ON SALE! how to magnify your gains. (Score:4, Insightful)
Example: $1000(SCOX@$18) original short positon in SCOX. SCOX drops 50%, you make $500 and lock that in. You take a your gains and take a $1500(SCOX@$8) short position, that drops 50% and you make $750 and cash out again. You have now made $1250 more in gains, more than doubling your original position. By doing that every time SCOX drops in half, your position grows by half, $1500(SCOX@$8) turns into $2250(SCOX@$4) into $3375(SCOX@$2) into $5062.50(SCOX@$1)into $7593.75(SCOX@$.5) and then you let it ride to zero and victory where you collect! Under your plan the most you can make is $1000, my plan will make huge cash money but unfortunately I am too chicken to do this as I am nearly broke. A way to cut your risk is to sock away some of your gains in cash to protect against a margin call if SCOX momentarily fluxuates upward. A way to magnify your gains is to find an instrument that will go up in direct proportion as SCOX falls, but you will probably need cash on hand if your short position gets called in. A lot of people shorting SCOX can completely obliterate the share price in a matter of hours under the right circumstances. Enron and Worldcom went down that way, the short sellers took over and they went down in flames. You ever wonder why rich people like hedge funds? Now you know!
Probably not (Score:4, Informative)
NB: shorting a stock consists of "selling" shares you don't own. You can then "buy" them at a lower price. The poster sold at $17 and can buy back today at roughly $9, making $8 a share.
Yes, this means that the poster effectively owns negative shares.
It's the smart thing to do with SCO stock if you think they're full of shit. But it's risky: if the lawsuit has merit (yeah, I know, it's ridiculous, but bear with me) and the shares shoot up to $40 each, the poster is out just a ton of money.
Re:SCO ON SALE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, both stocks dropped 10.56%
I don't think it really matters what the initial price was. A stock dropping that much is bad no matter what the initial price.
You argument works a little bit better if the poster was saying how the stock dropped 5 points (not percent). If the stock was originally at 100 and it dropped 5 points that's not too big of deal. If a stock was at 10 and then dropped 5 points, it might very well be game over.
So Very Sad. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So Very Sad. (Score:4, Funny)
There's got to be clowns....
Oh Darl, you're here.
Rats (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong way round (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong way round (Score:5, Funny)
It's been happening in Soviet Ru...
why even bother.
Re:Rats leaving the ship (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rats leaving the ship (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's such a pity that the actions of 95% of lawyers make the other 5% look bad.
Watch it fall! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Watch it fall! (Score:5, Interesting)
IF you look at the sell orders (ASK) vs the buy (BID) orders outstanding, it tells a horrible story for people who own SCO.
Things to look for. What are people willing to pay for SCO, vs what people are asking to sell it. Compare both groups to the current asking price and you can see that most people who want to buy aren't the same as those who want to sell. People wanting to buy really know what the value is, while those people willing to sell are looking to squeeze a few extra $ out before cashing out.
Expect the $ to drop substantially. Then perhaps you might find SCO does get its wish and get bought out by someone. Although it would be fun just watching the ship sink into the abyss.
Re:Watch it fall! (Score:4, Informative)
The reason is that short orders eventually have to be closed. To close a short order, you have to buy the stock. You can even put a stop order in so that when it hits below a certain price, your buy order is executed, locking in your profits. This causes automatic support, and probably accounts for most of the buying side of the stock today.
Nevertheless, the value of the stock will prevail. Thus, no matter how many short positions there are to cover, the stock will continue to drop over time if its value is deemed to be lower. In this case, the short positions will simply slow down the inevitable.
Re:Watch it fall! (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on your perspective. SCO down 11.28% sounds quite good to me.
The future for SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
So what will happen? I say we're going to see a SCOX vs BayStar lawsuit. SCO likes lawsuits. They like to stall for time while talking shit to the press. It gives them time to dump stock gotten cheaply from options [thomsonfn.com]. We'll get more of that. Only this time, investor-types (people who matter as far as the stock is concerned) won't like it. Fucking around with your big investors? Now, that's something else compared to fucking around with a bunch of hippie nerds and IBM.
I assume the "SCO must have permission from BayStar to start lawsuits"-clause in the contract won't be a hindrance, since probably BayStar will start it :-)
If BayStar is able to get ~$20M back (20000 at $1000 plus interest and penalties), then maybe RBC want their part back... which would instantly kill SCOX dead, dead, dead.
suggested mod-limit: 3
Re:The future for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The future for SCO: Street.com article (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Street.com article "BayStar Says SCO Breached Note" [thestreet.com]:
(emphasis added) Thus, even if SCO eventually prevails over Baystar this may still sink SCO. SCO won't be able to obtain enough funding to battle IBM, et al.
Royal Bank of Canada ($30 Million) to follow suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the ZD Net article BayStar seeks to retrieve investment in SCO [com.com]:
(emphasis added) Makes one wonder who, if anyone, else owns preferred stock in SCO that is subject to the same or similar provisions.
The joy! (Score:5, Funny)
Phase 1. We know SCO's business plan is flawed.
Phase 2. The Stockmarket [yahoo.com] knows that SCO's business plan is flawed. The share price is jumping about because people just like to speculate [itmanagersjournal.com] in the short term.
Phase 3. And Now baystar knows SCO's business plan is flawed (and finds a technicality to get their shares back)
Phase 4. ??? [The obligatory gnome-esc gap in the logic]
Phase 5. Profit? haha.. not this time. Go Directly into Administration. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200. Darl can look forward to having tux inserted, lovingly, into his anus by his boyfriend in prison :D
Simon.
Re:The joy! (Score:5, Funny)
Have you ever seen penguins jump in the water? Those little fuckers are so good at sliding in, they hardly displace any water at all.
What Darl needs up his ass is an eServer.
I am altering the deal. (Score:5, Funny)
SCO announced today (Score:5, Funny)
Whoops! (Score:3, Informative)
SCO requests specifics (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh, making accusations, and not providing any specifics! That's horrible!!!!! I'm sure SCO is outraged.
Mike
Re:SCO requests specifics (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO requests specifics (Score:5, Funny)
This just in:
BayStar Capital II, L.P. today announced a program under which SCOX officers are allowed to learn about the BayStar charges. SCOX officers are only required to sign the dotted line in an NDA about an NDA to a letter about a contract, and they will learn everything they need to know[0].BayStar believes this is a very fair and balanced offer and that only TERRORISTS would decline such a fine offer.
[0] In addition, they will not be allowed to say anything about anything and may be asked to give BayStar money which they will then be legally required to do.
SCO now stands for (Score:5, Funny)
A quote from my favorite movie: "Die Hard" (Score:4, Funny)
SCO: "Everything's fine, la la la..." (Score:5, Funny)
The timing is late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The timing is late (Score:4, Informative)
Official loser (Score:5, Informative)
Screaming sound (Score:5, Funny)
A shame really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Going to trial against SCO is a sure thing for IBM, and therefore good for Linux. IBM and Redhat would tear SCO a new one, and the GPL would have it's day in court against the mental midgits from Provo.
If SCO goes bankrupt, this (I assume) goes in a legal round file somewhere. Then we can just wait for Microsoft to come at us directly with an army of lawyers that dwarfs IBM.
Re:A shame really. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a prize fighter, you want your first professional fight to be against some out-of-shape opponent who stands a slim chance of winning but wouldn't mind the paycheck. In a lot of ways, SCO was the ideal opponent. They talked up the hype, they were bringing the payday to the ring, and they had a very slim chance of defeating Linux (and more notably, Linux's trainers in the forms of IBM, etc.)
So if this "fight" doesn't actually occur, it scares away other potential easy wins for Linux's professional debut in the courtroom. A prizefighter whose opponents cancel the fights doesn't get a chance at the title - he's still an unproven amateur.
Re:A shame really. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM won't let it go that easily... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM was accused of not keeping their hands clean with contracts and licences. They will not rest until SCO's accusations have been completely and utterly discredited, even if it means flogging a dead horse. That they "ran SCO's war chest empty" simply won't do.
It has very little to do with the SCO case at all. IBM is relying on major contractors like military, government, major businesses selecting IBM because they are rock solid and trustworthy. That the data they entrust to IBM systems will be handled exactly as specified in contracts.
That, and I suppose some people in IBM would take a certain pleasure in doing it. But hey, if you can have both business and pleasure, why not?
Kjella
Re:A shame really. (Score:5, Informative)
"For ten years, I did all of the GPL enforcement work around the world by myself, while teaching full time at a law school. It wasn't hard, really; the defendant in court would have had no license, or had to choose affirmatively to plead my license: they didn't choose that route. Indeed, they didn't choose to go to court; they cooperated, that was the better way. My client didn't want damages, my client wanted compliance. My client didn't want publicity, my client wanted compliance. We settled for compliance all the time. We got compliance all the time."
Basically, when faced with actually going to court, people violating the license have always come to the conclusion that they couldn't win.
Re:A shame really. (Score:4, Informative)
sPh
Linux users must celebrate. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Linux users must celebrate. (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm - too much risk for someone behind the scenes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could it be that said string-puller has decided that there is too much risk that (a) SCO will not only lose its suits, but do so in a way that validates the GPL (b) IBM might break through the Canopy/Baystar corporate veil and find out who the string puller is? And therefore that person has taken some action to force SCO into bankruptcy and pull the plug on the lawsuits?
sPh
At SCO (Score:4, Funny)
In SCO's headquarters...
Darl McBride: 'Damn!... What can we do?'
Employee: 'What if we sued them?'
Darl McBride: 'Good! GREAT! Let's sue them. But, er... what for?'
Employee: 'Hmmm...'
Darl McBride: 'Let's say, that, erm... BayStar runs FreeBSD! Let's say FreeBSD contains our IP.'
Employee: 'You have not lost your genius, Mister McBride! JOHN! Get a few lines from the BSD source code, will ya? Any lines will do.'
Sections 2(b)(v), 2(b)(viii) and 3(g) of the .... (Score:5, Funny)
2(b)(v) : Presumption of Correctness
2(b)(viii) : Failure to Pass the "Laugh Test" Clause
3(g) : General Asshattery Clause
Re: Sections 2(b)(v), 2(b)(viii) and 3(g) of the . (Score:5, Informative)
A less flippant summary:
2(b)(v) "You didn't outright lie to us about what you said about yourself in the original purchase agreement."
2(b)(viii) "You didn't omit any material fact that would make what you say about yourself misleading. You also haven't withheld from the public information you are required to disclose by law."
3(g) "You won't provide non-public information to us after the press release."
Not that I don't find yours more entertaining.
Was Baystar investment a trojan horse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it was IBM instead of Microsoft behind the Baystar investment? :)
Poetic justice (Score:3, Funny)
Talk about being hoist on your own petard! Hah! Show the infringing lines of the agreement, 'kay?
Not how we want to see SCO die. (Score:3)
This was an opportunity to test the GPL in court, but yet again, that will be delayed if SCO dies by other means. The court case must play out.
Tornado Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why, but for some reason I'm reminded of what I heard once about tornadoes.
It's not the high winds that damage a house, it's that sudden change of pressure that causes the house to explode from the imbalance.
Re:Tornado Effect (Score:5, Informative)
[This has been a public service message from the heart of Tornado Alley.]
Re:Tornado Effect (Score:4, Informative)
I know this is off-topic, but this particular myth bugs me because people have died doing stupid things like trying to open their windows when a tornado came instead of taking proper shelter. (The idea being that the pressure won't affect the house if the windows are open and the air can escape)
Reminds me of that scene in star wars (Score:5, Funny)
Darl: What in our moment of triumph?
-----
Ibm: Ok redhat, Youre all clear now blow this thing so we can all go home
(Scene of SCO imploding)
(Fat guys with beards in Star Wars t-shirts
dancing in the streets)
It's the End of the SCO as we know it... (Score:5, Funny)
It's the End of the SCO as we know it,
And I feel fine!
I feel fine!
The 45-day deadline is also coming up... (Score:5, Informative)
... where SCO has been ordered to: [groklaw.net]
It's a tall order. I foresee a lot of coffee drinking and nail-biting this weekend, whether or not the smoking suitcase [groklaw.net] is full of evidence.
Darth BayStar to Lando SCOrissian: (Score:5, Funny)
SCO sues Baystar for breach of contract (Score:5, Funny)
here a fill in the blank form for it to help you along
_____ writes today SCO sued ____ for ____ and $____ in damages. SCO contends that ____ failed to _____ resulting in SCO ______. When reached for comment _________ declined to respond at this time due to pending _________ but released a press release stating "At this time _________
IRONY: SCaldera cries "they aren't specific" (Score:5, Funny)
ROFLMFAO!!! Anyone notice that little bit of irony?
SCaldera's been running around saying that IBM, Novell, Redhat, Linus, your grandma, and everyone else has stolen their code and used it in Linux. MILLIONS of lines, they say.
When asked for specifics (even by the court) they refuse to grant any...
This is the first blow... Even if SCO holds off the redemtion request, they now must expend money in court to fight it. RBC might follow suit (and they should, or they are pissing away their $30 million).
Either party has an excellent chance, if they are right on their claim to have the court FREEZE those assets pending hearing.
This effectively kills SCaldera.
BayStar has made the decision to do this because they have no chance of ever getting their money back otherwise. And they are doing this knowing it destroys SCO.
This whole thing is over within 6 months now.
Get 'em while they're hot! (Score:4, Funny)
New certificates being printed on convenient pre-perforated rolls of high quality two ply facial tissue.
Is this part of the "Master Plan"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Through the whole process, SCO's claims were bordering on ridiculous. Their antics rarely ever resulted in a stronger chance of being able to win the case.. they merely generated more publicity.
It looks to me like their only goal in the whole process was to create as much FUD about Linux and Free Software as they could. To get as much media coverage as possible, creating that seed of doubt in as many IT managers minds as possible.
The grand finale is when they cannot fund the lawsuit anymore, and close up shop. With no conclusion to the case, that cloud of FUD still hangs over Linux.
Yeah.. that's quite a conspiracy theory. It's probably more likely that the SCO people are merely morons. But, whether by design or by their ineptitude, I think that the death of SCO before resolving the case would be a bad thing.
Re:Is this part of the "Master Plan"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most conspiracies are one part cunning, one part accident, and eight parts a bunch of morons all acting at cross-purposes. But, like the monkeys and the typewriters, every once in awhile they produce something legible...or in this case - perhaps - something that actually works.
SCO smells just like this. A dash of cunning, a pinch of good luck, and a huge dollop of stupidity contributed by a bunch of dumb-asses convinced they're the next Napoleons of the political/business world. By sheer happenstance things just might work out well for the puppet master...whoever that happens to be.
But if it does it will have had nothing to do with masterful planning. The conspiracies put forward by shows like the X-Files and the loons just don't exist. Conspirators, by and large, are either too arrogant, too stupid, or both to actually pull off whatever it is they're aiming for...assuming you can keep them from fighting with each other over pecking order long enough to get anything done.
Max
Could this conceivably be a bad thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
I worry that if the BOC joins in and asks for their $30M back, SCO goes bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, it's not like their lawsuits go away. Instead (IIRC, IANAL as usual) suits they filed are put on hold until after administration, while suits filed against them are voided with the option to re-file after administration. Stretching these out even more years wouldn't be a good result, I don't think. They need to be crushed in court.
Anyone who is a lawyer, or knows about corporate bankruptcy procedures, and can comment on this?
The Baystar deal has a stock price trigger (Score:5, Informative)
But there's a clause in the Baystar agreeement that prohibits SCO from doing most share repurchases.
This is going to get very ugly. Probably on Monday. When, remember, SCO finally has to disclose to IBM and the court what the claimed "infringing code" is. That deadline is tomorrow.
uhhh hello (Score:5, Interesting)
Next time they'll be smarter though. The plan now is for SCO to back out before the GPL is held up in US court and for someone else to come in and carry the FUD torch against Linux. Its probably going to suit patent related.
With Apologies To Don MacLean (Score:5, Funny)
Darl can still remember
When Unix(tm) used to make him smile...
And he knew that in a few weeks
That he would sue those Linux(tm) geeks
And maybe prop the stock up for a while...
But IBM just wouldn't shiver
The AIX code they wouldn't deliver
Bad news on the newsrack
BayStar wants their cash back
I don't remember getting sad
When I heard how their stock crashed so bad
But I was laughing and oh so glad
The Day The SCO Group Died...
So we were singing
Bye, bye, Mr. Darl McBride...
Re:Conspiracy Theory Dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy Theory Dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarly true. Remember, Microsoft wants all Unix vendors dead. Order may not be important.
Re:Did you hear it? (Score:4, Funny)