Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BayStar Sets Lawyers on SCO

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the racking-up-the-billable-hours dept.

Caldera 377

myster0n writes "According to The Register: 'SCO's attempts to rescue its relationship with BayStar, its biggest backer, have come to naught. On Friday morning, Eastern time, SCO announced that the stock buyback deal it agreed with the unhappy investor had closed. Two hours and five minutes later, Baystar issued a statement saying that a) no it hadn't and b) we'll see you in court, matey.'" Thanks to The Reg for the write-up.

cancel ×

377 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why you little maggots, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801291)

I got FP!

1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801293)

post

The taste of failure (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801319)

You, dear sir, FAILED IT!

Cool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801304)

Cool. What is the world coming to?

Obligatory Simpson's quote... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Writer (746272) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801306)

"Ha ha!" (Nelson)

Re:Obligatory Simpson's quote... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801614)

"Ha ha!" (Nelson)

"Release the hounds!" (Mr. Burns) might be more appropriate.

Re:Obligatory Simpson's quote... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801647)

Congrats on repeating a lame joke for the 1000th time. You are truly a talented comedian and deserve your +5 funny.

Obligatory Family Guy quote... (4, Funny)

Bigby (659157) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801726)

"You two, fight to the death." -- Stewie

Baystar is canadian. (4, Funny)

Thng (457255) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801308)

so it should be "we'll see you in court, eh."

Re:Baystar is canadian. (1)

JPelorat (5320) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801321)

Beauty.

MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801342)

hey jackasses, its either informative or insightful.

Re:Baystar is canadian. (4, Funny)

Polkyb (732262) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801346)

I really can't see what all the fuss is aboot

Re: "Aboot" (0, Troll)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801526)

I assume South Park picked up 'aboot' from somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know where.

It sounds more like it comes from a Scottish accent than anything else.

Re: "Aboot" (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801619)

Um, that's how many canadians say "about." I don't really know why they say it like that, but it's a pretty well known regional pronunciation difference.

Re: "Aboot" (1)

chromaphobic (764362) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801624)

I assume South Park picked up 'aboot' from somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know where.

The first "aboot" reference/joke I can remember was in Chasing Amy, where Banky says he watches Degrassi High because "I got a weird thing for girls who say "aboot.""

Not saying that's where they got it from though, just the first time I can recall hearing it.

Misread Title (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801646)

Damn I misread the title. I thought it said "Baystar sets lawyers on fire on SCO"

Re:Baystar is canadian. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801529)

OMg These joEks are SO teh funny!!11 keep 'em comin' boyz!@!!

Re:Baystar is canadian. (4, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801384)

Actually they are in California [baystarcapital.com] , so it should be "we'll see you in court, dude." You are probably thinking of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) that originally was apart of the $50m cash infusion that backed out a while ago when Baystar bought them out.

Re:Baystar is canadian. (4, Funny)

JPelorat (5320) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801421)

Sounds like a good plot for "SCO and Darl's Bogus Journey"

Re:Baystar is canadian. (2, Interesting)

kryonD (163018) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801551)

No inside info or anything, but there has been no successful attempt on IBM or Novell's part for a summary judgement in their favor. This does bring to question..."What if SCO is right?"

Now, of course they were completely smoking crack to say the Linux community owes them ~$700 per copy of Linux used. But if they do indeed own the IP to some of Unix AND IBM did indeed slip a few bells and whistles into Linux without getting the propper blessing....then I would say the slashdot boards are going to be an interresting sight to see.

Don't get me wrong. I'm rooting for Big Blue, The Suse guys, and Joe Linux user. But the length this has drawn out does make one wonder.

Re:Baystar is canadian. (1)

Thng (457255) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801511)

Yep, my mistake-Baystar is in California. thought about it awhile after I posted. maybe I'll wait till after noon to post from now on

Re:Baystar is canadian. (4, Funny)

daeley (126313) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801410)

Now, now, now. There's no point in insulting our neighbors to the North with stereotypes that don't reflect the reality of a richly multicultural society.

It should be "We'll see you in court, you hosers."

Re:Baystar is canadian. (3, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801431)

That was a translation to British.

Slashdot being a US site, should therefore translate it again to "We'll see you in court, sucka"

Re:Baystar is canadian. (2, Informative)

MLamar (23821) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801519)

It read that way because the full text of the story was lifted from the story on The Register.

Re:Baystar is canadian. (1)

slyxter (609602) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801549)

Not all Canadians say "eh". Stop being such a hoser.

Re:Baystar is canadian. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801679)

Congrats on repeating a lame joke for the 1000th time. You are a truly talented comedian and deserve your +5 funny.

fuck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801310)

off

The real conclusion... (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801315)

...I'd advise drawing from this is to avoid business relationships with either of these companies.

Re:The real conclusion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801358)

Yeah, no kidding!

As the Simpons Would say (-1, Redundant)

rf0 (159958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801324)

<Nelson>Ha ha</Nelson>

Rus

karma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801327)

what goes around comes around

Pains (5, Insightful)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801328)

Looks like SCO is about to finally see the damage they cause when they burn bridges via litigation. The less "business partners" SCO has, the shorter their life expectancy, which doesn't seem to consist of more than suing everybody, will be.

Re:Second Wave of Painfull news crushing In (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801427)

When those dueling press releases were issued friday July 23, 2004 only long time SCO2 watchers Stephen Shankland of Cnet "SCO, BayStar resume squabbling" and Eweeks Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols "BayStar Threatens to Sue SCO" reacted to the PR releases of SCO and Baystar (the later with a good double feature), joint by USA Todays Tech Investor "SCO says BayStar deal closed; BayStar disagrees".

Today a second wave of Bad PR build up, starting with two refrubished Stephen Shankland
articles in Australia, followed by Tom's Hardware Guide noting that SCO2 is in a "FiaSCO - SCO's war on Open Source about to be fought on six fronts" (notice that this is the same side that debunked Darl's Naked German Shorts before the last conference call was over)
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/200407 26_0528 39.html
Next was Londons The Register to notice that "BayStar sets lawyers on SCO"

When daylight crossed the atlantic, SCO2 tried to build a dam agaist the wave of bad PR and issued two press releases at 8 o'clock US east cost time in a desperate move to cover the bad news at the top of their news heap, to scroll it off the screens like a Troll posting bogus messages. Let't get some popcorn and see if it holds.

Re:Second Wave of Painfull news crushing In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801740)

'SCO2' is not a valid ticker symbol. [yahoo.com] I think you mean SCOX.

Re:Pains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801718)

> Looks like SCO is about to finally see the damage they cause when they burn bridges via litigation

This doesn't seem to apply to Microsoft...

My favorite part (5, Funny)

grunt107 (739510) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801339)

is the following paragraph:
'SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout, and that everything it said publicly and privately is true. But, and this should come as no surprise, it won't had over the documents BayStar wants to see. It says this is to "protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information" and to "avoid fostering speculation regardng its SCOsource business".'

Darl: Paragon of Virtue, Lifter of the Downtrodden, Scooper of the Pooper - He needs an action figure!!!!

Re:My favorite part (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801369)

If the action figure comes with the pooper-scooper, I'll buy one.

Re:My favorite part (2, Funny)

Eccles (932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801717)

Unfortunately they cost $699.

Re:My favorite part (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801402)

>Darl: Paragon of Virtue, Lifter of the Downtrodden, Scooper of the Pooper - He needs an action figure!!!!

Action Brothers!

"IBM clearly did contribute a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it is." -- Kevin McBride, adressing the judge.

Action Kevin: The Caped Legal Mastermind

Re:My favorite part (3, Insightful)

Dumbush (676200) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801435)

hmmm... while reading that, I kept thinking about the Bush administration for some reason...

Re:My favorite part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801589)

Does it come with the Kung-Fu Action Nose? "More powerful than a Filter Queen!" (No wonder they can't find those lines of code. Darl snorted them.)

Two hours and five minutes (5, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801348)

The five minutes to draft their response, I can understand. What was the two hours for? Laughter, rage, a few more holes of golf?

Re:Two hours and five minutes (2, Funny)

Dav3K (618318) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801367)

The two hours was to count all the money they plan to retrieve from SCO

Re:Two hours and five minutes (2, Interesting)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801508)

At most another five minutes. They're in the Collection line behind IBM. (Unless this case is just a way of jumping from the prefered stockholder line to the court awarded damages one.)

Bankers on a Friday morning? I still think it was golf.

So, who are the bigger morons? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801351)

The fools, or the fools that back them? It's a tough question, eh?

Nothing for SCO to fret about... (4, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801356)

This still doesn't represent any real threat to SCO because it is just a maneuver by BayStar to get the terms they want. SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar, so almost certainly there will be a settlement soon. This is all just pre-resolution chest thumping. S.O.P.

Re:Nothing for SCO to fret about... (3, Informative)

spungo (729241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801398)

Yes there is - a matter $30m, roughly. If Baystar get their way, they could get back their entire $50m, as opposed to the $22m that SCO are offering, as far as I can tell.

BayStar will not sue, SCO will settle. (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801557)

Yes there is - a matter $30m, roughly.

Exactly. And this is why SCO will settle.

Keep in mind also, SCOs propensity to drag lawsuits out. Do you think BayStar really wants to get into a 2 or three year legal hassle only to get nothing when SCO craters into the moon after bankrupsy death spiral? This is all just a dance.

Re:Nothing for SCO to fret about... (4, Interesting)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801426)

They couldn't afford to sue IBM, RedHat (ok RedHat sued them but still), Novell, AutoZone, or DC, but that didn't stop them from doing it. I would agree though that this is more of a PR move to show who's is longer.

Re:Nothing for SCO to fret about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801442)

http://wdb1.sco.com/clbk_web/owa/dwn_customer

DOWNLAOD SCO:A [sco.com]

Re:Nothing for SCO to fret about... (4, Interesting)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801517)

I don't consider your investor threatening to sue you a healthy situation. SCO is a big old machine that's at the end of it life; everything is shaking, and soon it will just fall apart.

S.O.P. (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801721)

I don't consider your investor threatening to sue you a healthy situation.

This is more or less standard in business. We don't hear about it most times because most cases of this nature are not high profile. It is posturing. SCO is a big old machine that's at the end of it life; everything is shaking, and soon it will just fall apart.

And this is exaclty why the suit will never happen, BayStar knows that in the end, with a law suit they will only help bring down SCO before they get any money at all. The threat of a law suit (and that's all it is right now) is BayStar's way of saying "look here, SCO, do what we want or else". In the end, it will probably work.

Funding (2, Interesting)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801755)

SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar

Really? Just wait, I read somewhere that Microsoft is going to need some Unix(tm)(r)(patent pending) technology to replace all those open source parts of Microsoft(r) Services For Unix(r). I'm pretty sure Microsoft is not going to mind if the price is a little bit higher than the going rate.

Bad Article Headline. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801359)

Jesus. Seriously? Lately I only read Slashdot for the +5 Funny, everything else I get from The Register.

Another lovely day on the slopes... (4, Insightful)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801360)

....as SCO's stock [yahoo.com] skis ever downwards.

Re:Another lovely day on the slopes... (2, Interesting)

muppetsrule (734214) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801473)

Why not make some money off of SCO's woes, then? Short their stock make money and have double the entertainment value. :)

Re:Another lovely day on the slopes... (1)

Tassach (137772) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801534)

There are no SCOX shares available to be shorted. Even if there were any available, the price isn't high enough to make the risk worthwhile.

Re:Another lovely day on the slopes... (3, Informative)

stecoop (759508) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801564)

My rules of investment which are also followed by Warren Batty (or do I follow his rules? ehh I like my wording), is to never short a stock. The most money you can make from a short stock is the current price times the number of share you buy. Meaning that as the company approaches zero, the less likely you are to make more money. See in a regular stock purchase, your highest price approaches infinity because there is no limit to how high the stock can go; therefore, your better off to buy a positive company.

In the case of SCOX, the most you could make is $4.15 per share as of 10:38AM ET.

Re:Another lovely day on the slopes... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801579)

At this point, you probably shouldn't short any of their stock. Given how low their stock is currently valued, you would have to buy a lot of shares in order to make any money at all once you deal with the broker's fees and whatnot.

Kierthos

The 2-year chart illustrates it better (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801480)

You can see the real effect of the decline if you look at the two-year chart [yahoo.com] . They're almost back to where they were before they started the FUD campaign.

Re:The 2-year chart illustrates it better (1)

dominiv (741746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801687)

Except that they don't have any real business anymore, so they're bound to be at the wrong side of the curve: byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

One could interpret this... (4, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801362)

as an attempt to shut down the SCO fiasco before any really harmful judgements are handed down that prevent further Microsoft-funded FUD against Linux.

Obviously there are regulatory hurdles on the way to Longhorn. Slowing Linux adoption is clearly in the best interests of Redmond, and sowing doubt through litigation is pretty much the only strategy they have left that will work.

Re:One could interpret this... (1)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801465)

The fact is, Baystar wanted SCO to focus only on cases concerning Linux and SCO's Intellectual "Property".
Baystar is the second bad boy here, angry on SCO for not being bad enough and practically losing case against Daimler-Chrystler (as we all recall from latest news). So, Baystar isn't on Linux side. They're taking their money away from SCO because they aren't efficient enough in their cases against Linux.
Thus said, the parent topic interpretation isn't the proper one :].

Re:One could interpret this... (4, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801523)

The facts are that SCO has bungled this in a massive way. There are repeated mishandlings of the discovery of the IBM case, a poor choice in suing Novell for "Slander of Title", and poor choice in suing Daimler-Chrysler. This is not subject to debate.

Baystar wanted a competent anti-Linux legal attack. That was what the money was for. They repeatedly asked for this, and got more incompetence. Therefore, they are cutting bait, but more than that, they want to make sure this stuff doesn't continue along the current destructive path. They want SCO to die, and fast.

Otherwise, why not just take their money and run? Why prolong the agony looking for a declaratory judgement?

You fail to explain this, and that's why i'm closer to the mark.

Re:One could interpret this... (4, Interesting)

fr0dicus (641320) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801577)

If it is MS behind this, why don't they just concentrate on the lack of cohesive desktop, interoperable office suite, analyst confidence, financial, business-to-business, seriously supported messaging middleware and administration costs and ease-of-use arguments? There's plenty more mileage, FUD or otherwise in all of those areas.

I really don't think we've seen a tenth of Redmond's answer to Linux yet, simply because it's a tiny threat compared in reality to their customer base as opposed to what the average slashdot poster seems to think about it.

This was probably just them dipping a toe in the water. Hell, they've destroyed SCO (who had an old Unix and their own version of Linux), cost IBM plenty (those lawyers have to be paid), discredited Novell (what exactly do they own?) and made a lot of people think twice. Sure fills the gap between SP2 and Longhorn.

Re:One could interpret this... (1)

Dr_Marvin_Monroe (550052) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801635)

I agree that the FUD supporters may be a little concerned right now. If SCO damages their (the other FUD supporter's) ability to sue with some type of negative verdict, it could be substantially more difficult to start more suits further in the future.

I just don't think that SCO could pull out now to defer a verdict. I really don't think IBM would even accept any type of settlement or dropping, even one where SCO walks away from their claims. Remember that IBM has counter-claims against SCO, and those are NOT going to be dropped. Walking away from the suit may even mean that IBM get's a declatory judgement about Linux not infringing without contest.

This trouble is even better, because it will force any future funding of SCO out into the open. If MS is really interested in supporting SCO, they're gonna have to throw them the lifepreserver soon... and they'll have to do it in broad daylight.

That old saying. (0, Redundant)

suso (153703) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801364)

What goes around comes around.

*gasp!* (3, Funny)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801365)

SCO??? Going to court? Impossible! That never happens.... go buy your lottery tickets today!

Dear Darl & Chris (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801372)


It takes a big man to cry, it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.
Jack Handey

SCO Confused? (2, Insightful)

TheLetterPsy (792255) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801396)

From the second article:

SCO maintains that it has been a paragon of virtue and transparency throughout

Maybe a paragon of Corporate Virtue and Transparency . . . an oxymoronic (or simply moronic) statement in itself. But most definitely that group has been anything BUT virtuous or transparent.

Re:SCO Confused? (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801499)

Maybe a paragon of Corporate Virtue and Transparency

CVT eh? Funny - to me that stands for Continuously Variable Transmission. And that is a damned near perfect description of SCO's communications so far.

Cheers,
Ian

Come on, people ... (5, Insightful)

phritz (623753) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801405)

It is not OK just to copy and paste the article text in your article submission. You can say something like 'The Register writes " ..."' but you can't just take credit for it. And come on, Hemos, can't you RTFA before you post it?

So does SCO even have any friends now? (4, Funny)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801409)

I can't think of one offhand, even Microsoft by implication is their enemy, (if a friend of a friend is now an enemy of your friend, they are your enemy too, no?), congrats SCO you're probably now one of the most loathed companies in America. Lower than Microsoft, lower than Diebold, lower than the Nigerian Asset Transfer consortium that always wants my money, you get the picture...

Re:So does SCO even have any friends now? (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801673)

I can't think of one offhand, even Microsoft by implication is their enemy, (if a friend of a friend is now an enemy of your friend, they are your enemy too, no?)

And wouldn't Microsoft love to be considered their enemy...

Too bad for them, it's not happening. Microsoft is their friend and sponsor (along with Sun), and any evidence to the opposite is quite probably fabricated. Microsoft could even sue SCO, while being in friendly terms in the backrooms. SCO execs, Canopy group and other scumbags cash on in this charade, hardly caring what happens to SCO-the-company (which has been doomed for a while now).

This case must be pursued all the way to the front door of Microsoft. Once SCO is dead, this is far from over. Otherwise, MSFT could sponsor various little companies with promise of riches for their execs, while itself remaining untarnished.

Or so they think.

Yes - three (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801676)

"So does SCO even have any friends now?"

Of course they do:

1. Microsoft.
2. Sun.
3. Satan.


Microsoft and Sun have invested in SCO's efforts via licenses, so it's unlikely they'll ever sue SCO.

Satan, on the otherhand, is a lawyer. They really don't want to piss him off. With SCO's track record, I suspect it's only a matter of time though.

I see... (2, Interesting)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801412)

I see the vultures circling over...

And I bet there won't be too much rotting flesh left on that carcass when they're done feeding.

Re:I see... (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801713)

And I bet there won't be too much rotting flesh left on that carcass when they're done feeding.

The carcass never had any flesh to feed on in the first place.

A Prayer (1)

Michael_Burton (608237) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801425)

Baystar sics lawyers on SCO. It's only a matter of time before SCO sics lawyers on Baystar.

Please, oh, please, let there be no survivors.

Re:A Prayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801556)

Hmmmmmm....


I like it....we could do a "legal" Thunderdome.


Two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves!


Hehehe

To Quote... (1)

segfault7375 (135849) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801436)

To quote Dave Chappelle...

OH SNAP!!

I was kinda having a crappy day until I saw this story :)

~ Segfault

What an abysmal state to be in (5, Insightful)

geomon (78680) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801448)

You've got to wonder how much longer they can stand this abuse [yahoo.com] .

Looking at their quarterly income and cash flow statements, one can only draw one conclusion; SCO will be out of cash in roughly three to four quarters without a significant cash injection from an interested party.

Their stock price sucks, their product sucks, their management sucks, and they have NO customer good will. They have no prospects for income and roughly $60M in cash. At $12M+ losses per quarter, they will barely make it to the close of FY05.

I would hate to work there.

Re:What an abysmal state to be in (4, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801542)

I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to keep them going longer. Since everyone now knows about their involvement with the company (Which didn't raise FTC eyebrows?) they could probably just buy the SCO outright and keep it going until all the court cases have been resolved. That'd be another decade of relatively inexpensive FUD against their main competitor, at which time they could figure something else out. Maybe break off a couple billion dollars and infuse it into their favorite political party in return for making open source illegal. When you can afford to give away over thirty billion dollars to your shareholders, a couple billion here or there to preserve the monopoly is a drop in the bucket.

NOT GOOD at all......... (5, Insightful)

EvilLordSoth (770297) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801498)

BayStar ABSOLUTELY MUST do this! Otherwise, IBM and the others will be able to get the information about the link to Microsoft (read the Halloween Memos if you don't know what I'm talking about). They ONLY way to keep that information secret (and protect Bill) is to get it wrapped up in a lawsuit with "confidential" terms and a confidentiality agreement.

This has NOTHING to do with getting back the money they were instructed to channel to SCO.

So while we are all sitting around laughing at SCOX Baystar is definitely pulling a fast one to COVER THEIR investor's ASS(ETS).

Re:NOT GOOD at all......... (2, Insightful)

Oddly_Drac (625066) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801746)

"They ONLY way to keep that information secret (and protect Bill) is to get it wrapped up in a lawsuit with "confidential" terms and a confidentiality agreement."

Zounds, that must be the trick the bounders are pulling. I mean it was only because the Halloween documents came tagged with 'press release' that we actually saw them.

"This has NOTHING to do with getting back the money they were instructed to channel to SCO."

Well, there you're right. It's the difference between what SCO said they were doing and what SCO actually did coupled with what SCO told Baystar compared with what they claimed in teleconference.

As for 'instructed', I take it that you've had limited exposure to venture capital?

News Just In! (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801506)

SCO to countersue!

Missing Foot Icon (2, Funny)

Gtz (18854) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801510)

This article is missing the foot icon, as it was the first one today that made me laugh.

Short. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9801522)

For all of you who were wondering when is the time to short SCO stock (that just wanted to catch a short-term rather than long-term short), this is your signal. I feel bad for some of you that have had to run it gradually, but you can't just go on geek hunches.

SCO not only just killed themselves, but they ensured a VERY steep decline. Baystar did this just right, issuing a press release on a Thursday. It ensures a huge drop today.

Since its founding in 1998, BayStar has never before sent a letter to a company seeking its money back, as it has with SCO.

SCO's stock price, which fell 38 cents yesterday to $6.80 a share, has dropped 30 percent since last Thursday, the day BayStar sent its redemption letter.

"Keep riding" for those that got on early.

Google to buy SCO after IPO? (2, Interesting)

zoid.com (311775) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801527)

Wouldn't it be great if Google went took some of that IPO money and ended this whole fiaSCO? Google is one if not the biggest Linux house there is. With SCO's stock price down it would chump change for google.

Google... Buyout SCO and release all UNIX IP to the public!

Re:Google to buy SCO after IPO? (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801645)

Wouldn't it be great if Google went took some of that IPO money and ended this whole fiaSCO? Google is one if not the biggest Linux house there is. With SCO's stock price down it would chump change for google.

Wouldn't it be even better if Google simply waited till the stock was at 0.30 a share instead of over $3.00 a share? They don't want to overspend, but just pay close to what it's worth.

Re:Google to buy SCO after IPO? (2, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801701)

It would set a bad precedent that other struggling companies would try to follow. Release tons and tons of FUD to make your stock price go up for a little while and hope for a large buyout settlement at the end.

I plan to buy SCO!! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801715)

It won't be long before the SCO stock is so low they GIVE me money to accept the keys to the building. :) I just don't know what I'd do with it afterward... what do you do with such a huge pile of hot steamy doo-doo?

Not so sure about that (4, Interesting)

not_a_product_id (604278) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801725)

I don't believe SCO has any UNIX 'IP' to be released anyway.

Isnt it amazing? (4, Interesting)

Lispy (136512) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801532)

I believe that deep in my heart I am a calm and balanced person but it is amazing how angry this whole thing makes me. It really scares me how satisfiying it is to see them get what they deserve. SCO really did a great job in getting all the worst feelings from the techcommunity.

myster0n writes? (5, Interesting)

goldspider (445116) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801543)

"myster0n writes 'SCO's attempts to rescue its relationship with BayStar, its biggest backer, have come to naught. On Friday morning, Eastern time, SCO announced that the stock buyback deal it agreed with the unhappy investor had closed. Two hours and five minutes later, Baystar issued a statement saying that a) no it hadn't and b) we'll see you in court, matey.'"

Nope, The Register writes.

If you're going to plagiarize, at least try to make it a little less obvious than a cut-and-paste of the article's opening paragraph.

Finally, the world realises.. (1)

Mephie (582671) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801567)

SCO's stock fell slightly on the news, ending the day at $4.20.

An appropriate price, I think, given what they're smoking over at SCO.

ahhh SCO (1)

aldousd666 (640240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801605)

demonstrating their amazing abilities to stick their foot in it over and over, all whilst portraying themselves as great enforcers of the american way [itmweb.com] , and upholders of the capitalistic lifestyle [technewsworld.com] that we all hold so dear. I smell an oscar [oscar.com] . Maybe Darl will want to take his newfound fame and fortune to the next level, by becoming a rockstar [metrolyrics.com] too. [women.com]

Good. (2, Insightful)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801631)

I see we're now in the "SCO becomes laughing stock of the IT industry" part. In fact, I think we're about to enter the "SCO shareholders gather to file a class-action lawsuit against Darl and his clique" part.

Yawn... (1)

MongooseCN (139203) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801632)

It sounds to me like SCO is no more. They are out of money and are being taken to court by their own investors. Never mind the fact that no one believes their claims anymore. I think we can safely ignore SCO news now.

One statement says it all (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801669)

According to SCO, at the root of the disagreement are BayStar's claims that there are inconsistencies between public and private statements made by the software company.

Really given SCO's history of statements, does this come as surprise to BayStar?

It's sorta like on Springer when a wronged boyfiend/girlfriend/spouse comes on to complain how their partner has cheated on them. It's ironic though if the guilty party says something like "Babe, how do you think we met? I was cheating on so and so with you! Babe, you knew how I was before we started dating."

I pray that Darl doesn't wind up on Springer wearing a wife-beater. The usual pattern is that by the end of the show he's stripped down to nothing. [shudders]

Dogs-Fleas (2, Insightful)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 10 years ago | (#9801699)


If you lie down with dogs, you might wake up with fleas.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>