Baystar Confirms Microsoft Behind SCO Investment 468
Bruce Perens writes "Business Week has confirmed that Microsoft arranged the Baystar investment in SCO. A managing partner of Baystar says the call wasn't from Gates or Ballmer. But it wouldn't have to be, would it? Obviously, there's more investigation to do." Reader skreuzer writes "Yahoo Finance is reporting that SCO announced that the company's board of directors has authorized management, in its discretion, to purchase up to 1.5 million shares of SCO's common stock over the next 24 months. SCO has approximately 14.4 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Any repurchased shares will be held as treasury stock and will be available for general corporate purposes." Newsforge (which is also part of OSDN) is also following the story.
Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Informative)
Golly gee, I wonder what they're trying to hide? Anyone?
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Funny)
/Obvious tag needed
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Funny)
OH PLEASE! No you've gone too far... they would never go that...
D'OH!
-m
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:4, Funny)
No.... DOD!
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he said it's impossible to grow that big without being partially dirty. I always love that people criticise "big government" while believing corporations don't have the same faults, or vice versa. Power corrupts.
It is a proven fact Microsoft has played dirty, often blatantly illegal. When you view companies of that
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
Then:
1) They must be telling the truth.
2) This must mean they had no involvement in the SCO suit.
??!?!?
Golly gee, can I have another hit off that crack pipe?
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if a Microsoft representative called Baystar from his private phone during a holiday, then it was technically not Microsoft who orchestated this.
I wonder if Microsoft could be sued at all for unfair competition if Bill Gates chose to openly fund SCO shares from his private money?
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Informative)
It wouldn't matter who made the call or when, as long as the money came from Microsoft. If it came directly from BillG himself, then it still wouldn't matter would it? He's the head cheese of Microsoft, and his money comes from Microsoft too, doesn't it?
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
Not yet. If people keep digging I bet they will find the body sooner or later. Why would a bank make a 50 million dollar investment just because MS said so? Doesn't that seem weird to you?
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. If a Microsoft representative calls up SCO on Christmas eve from pup someplace in Christchurch while wearing a pink tutu, and that person has their cell phone signal bounced off of the solar reflectors on the Mars rover, relayed through several satellites and sketchy third world telephone exchanges, bounced through sever P2P nodes and then piped into the PBX of the Mormon church, if that person is representing the interest of Microsoft at the request of superiors, then yes, technically Microsoft "orchestrated this."
MOD PARENT UP...here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO starts wins over IBM, Linux becomes illegal.
Microsoft, who is now apparently backing SCO, aquires SCO in a take-over. Microsoft now owns the rights to UNIX and a significant portion of Linux.
How can it be a monopoly, if there is no competition?
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong. If an employee, in the preformance of assigned duties or at the direction of their employer - or even just with the knowledge of the employer, or if the employer SHOULD HAVE KNOWN - performs an illegal act, the company is responsible. In addition, the company does not lose their liability if the employee is told to wait until a non-working day and use a phone other than their office phone.
If the employee, on their own, with no knowledge or approval, or expectation of approval of their employer did whatever evil and nefarious act, then the employer is not responsible or liable.
In this case, if a person identified themselves as a Microsoft representative to BayStar and in some way gave BayStar the idea that Microsoft was interested in BayStar doing a deal with TSG, and BayStar, acting on the belief that it was in fact a Microsoft representative and a Microsoft request, entered in to the deal with TSG, then Microsoft IS technically "orchestrating this."
I wonder if Microsoft could be sued at all for unfair competition if Bill Gates chose to openly fund SCO shares from his private money?
Interesting thought. The answer is "No, to a point."
If B.G. buys stock on the open market, he is buying from some other individual that owned the stock. D.McB. might like that - especially if he is buying the stock from D.McB. - but TSG (the company) would derive no benefit from the transactions.
Up to a certain point he doesn't even have to declare his stock ownership (I believe it is around 5% of outstanding shares) - and it would take a much larger number of shares to actually be able to manipulate the actions of the company.
The BayStar transactions, on the other hand, directly funded the further operations of TSG - including the attacks on Linux (and Linus) which seen to be in line with (and possible intended to further?) Microsofts' interests.
Remember that there are things that a free marke company CAN do that a MONOPOLIST CAN'T do. This would seem, in my opinion, to be one of those things...
The litmus test of this (Score:5, Insightful)
But why would microsoft recommending SCO be a useful thing to baystar? Microsoft supposedly has no financial dealing with baystar so there's not "favor" to be granted here. And Microsoft obviously had a vested interest in giving the advice and I'm sure baystar was smart enough to see through that--so the advice would have no tangible use.
KEY point: The most benign explanation is that they were merely bringing it to baystars attention and presumbaly did so to many other companies. The key test is then: did they or did they not call hundreds of other speculative investment houses in hopes of convincing one with this long shot advice?
If they did not do so with many other companies then why did they think they had any standing to cold call baystar and give tainted advice? If they just called baystar alone then its very fishy. they must have promised other tangibles. Such as investing in companies baystar recommended back or promising cash influxes and supprt for the lawsuit.
Re:The litmus test of this (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that there is a chain of "buddies" that connect the two companies. This deal was closed over a beer (...or a soda in Utah). This connection will be impossible to find or prove. We will also never be able to discover overtures to other "speculative investment houses" because of a similar lack of paper trail.
It's ALWAYS a quid pro quo (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, Steve and Bill said they'd put alot of money in your hedge funds if you work on this little problem of ours.
Nothing written of course.
it doesn't take too much imagination to think of plenty of reasons.
Re:The litmus test of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:4, Insightful)
"Contrary to the speculation of Eric Raymond, Microsoft did not orchestrate or participate in the BayStar transaction."
This if I understand correctly is commercial speech. I wonder how the judges in the many instances of barratry that SCO has indulged in will like the fact that SCO is trying this in the court of public opinion, influencing juries, and all of that with bare lies. Not clear either how the so-called business channels that get all indignant and prissy over Martha Stewart can barely get themselves worked up to even report this. C'mon folks, this is a good and evil story like no movie ever seen.
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:4, Insightful)
C'mon folks, this is a good and evil story like no movie ever seen.
No it isn't. To most business-minded folks, MS isn't evil - it's the pinnacle of corporate success. This is just how the game gets played. If it's illegal then sure it might get press, but just being dirty scoundrals isn't enough to get anyone interested.
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)
"Microsoft has no direct or indirect financial relationship with BayStar."
Those two statements are very close to lies but may just be deceptive statements that omit very important facts. I say this because it actually appears that Paul Allen orchestrated the SCO investment. I say this because:
- Paul Allen is a former member of the board of directors of MS and the second largest shareholder. Paul Allen now serves as a senior strategy advisor to top Microsoft executives [microsoft.com].
- Paul Allen is one of the largest investors in BayStar Capital [wired.com].
So Paul Allen is in a position to advise and influence both MS and Baystar. He also has significant financial holdings in both companies. There is no tinfoil hat necessary to draw this connection.Holy smoking gun batman! (Score:4, Informative)
Jumping to Conclusions (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually read the PDF, you will see that you (and Wired, for that matter) are jumping to conclusions. The chart showing Vulcan Ventures (and Microsoft, for that matter) is a chart of data from PlacementTracker showing the overall number of PIPE deals. The vast majority of which have nothing to do with Baystar. This paper is Baystar's way of convincing people that PIPE transactions are a good thing.
None of which is to say that Vulcan and/or Microsoft don't invest through Baystar -- just that this PDF says nothing about it.
-Steve
Re:Tell the truth, dammit (Score:4, Interesting)
Scosource Gregory Blepp (hired from SuSe) was many times very close to break the injunctions on the German market. If SCO tried to sell licenses or spread FUD at CeBIT, Hanover the rapid response would be to report the offence to the police and let them put the managers in jail.
BayStar and M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
If I "suggest" to someone that they invest in something that I have no finantial interest in (SCO), that "suggestion" does not create a finantial interest. At this time.
I speculate that M$ "suggested" to BayStar that sometime in the future, perhaps, maybe, the software giant might possibly make some kind of investment in BayStar, of course totally unrelated to any investments BayStar might have made in SCO, hint-hint-wink-wink...
What's funny is that a few months ago when all us paranoid tin-foil hat folks where saying M$ had their fingers all over this, people said "go back in your basement, way too much illuminati, blaw, blaw, blaw..."
This part is not unusual. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, it would not have to be a "tip-top" person, just has to be a Principal or someone with delegated authority from a company officer to be valid. This is not anything uncommon at all.
Yahoo Finance is reporting that SCO announced that the company's board of directors has authorized management, in its discretion, to purchase up to 1.5 million shares of SCO's common stock over the next 24 months. SCO has approximately 14.4 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Any repurchased shares will be held as treasury stock and will be available for general corporate purposes.
This is nothing new, odd, illegal, unethical or strange either. It is a common business practice of publicly traded firms.
Now, the underlying story is where the problem sits, not with the scenery.
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:5, Informative)
This is nothing new, odd, illegal, unethical or strange either. It is a common business practice of publicly traded firms
Not when they're a couple of quarters away from insolvency. Stock buyback usually occurs when a company with low stock price have too much money on hand and no viable avanue of investement available.
SCO qualified 2 out of 3 catagory, but they most definately do not have too much cash on hand.Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:3, Interesting)
Boise is due 400,000 shares.
If Baystar/RBC provide some or all of it, it's a sweetheart deal where SCO redeams Baystar's investment, costing them nothing (they are just making shares up), and then buys them back, writing off the same expense twice.
Baystar/RBC get their money, and SCO gets yet another chance to cook the books.
SCO only allowed to buy employee shares (Score:3, Interesting)
So, unless we are about to see another SEC document modifying the PIPE deal, then this 1.5 million announcement is either BS to prop the stock price or SCO is about to reward a bunch of insiders:
Restrictions on the A1 Pfd
by: thwackamole 03/11/04 11:49 am
Msg: 108276 of 108282
Going along with a previous poster's comments, it app
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO has $50 million from the BayStar deal, with a redemption condition if the stock goes below ~$8.50 for 25 consecutive trading days.
In light of that, initiating a buyback-scheme when the stock started dipping close to this mark is completely expected. Losing the BayStar investment is a much bigger loss than what it'd cost SCO to keep the stock price inflated.
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up. That is exactly what is going on. That's why they initiated the buyback.
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:5, Interesting)
This confilicts with the fact that ALL recent insider trades are sells.(after exercising options)
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a perfect method of actually paying SCO directors to destroy SCO* for the benefit of M$.
*not that SCO really had a chance w/ x86 unix -- GNU/Linux is going to dominate ALL Unix in short order.
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:5, Interesting)
That might even count as inisidertrading, depending on circumstances we can't know about, so chances are it's illegal, too.
I guess they could defend themselves by saying it's been common knowledge for a long time that SCO is about to go out of bussiness. Of course, then they'd have been lying about their bussiness prospects... Oops!
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This part is not unusual. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about unethical or illegal, but it is certainly odd. A buyback occours only when the company feels that the share prices are too low. Now if the prices are low now, they certainly were low a few months back at 50 cents or so. What has changed between now and then which causes the values of the company to grow 18 fold? Even if we assume SCO's lawsuit has merit now, we mu
This part is most unusual. (Score:3, Interesting)
So long as any shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock are outstanding, the Corporation shall not take any of the following corporate actions (whether by merger, consolidation or otherwise) without first obtaining the approval (by vote or written consent, as provided by the DGCL) of the Majority Holders:
(v) redeem, repurchase or otherwise acquire, or declare or pay any cash dividend or distribution on, any Junior Securities. Notwithstand
Where's the incentive to profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Business Week is in no way a Linux Zealot and even they confirm that Microsoft enjoys competing on a level far removed from technical innovation.
What was to happen at the end of these shenanigans? Once the lawsuit is over, where does SCO expect to get it's money? It's not like Microsoft will continue to invest in them once this crap is over.
And does this come out of the MS advertising budget? Any advertising against our competitors is good PR? There is no way MS could re-coup anything from this other than FUD points. Where's the incentive to profit?
Re:Where's the incentive to profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, SCO doesn't have a long term continuity plan! McBride and his cronies are all set to cash out about this time next year. Once McBride flys the roost he'll probably turn around and sue SCO himself for something like he typically does. The stockholders will be the ones left holding the bag in the end and it's why I still can't understand why SCO isn't a penny-stock.
Re:Where's the incentive to profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO is not a penny stock because SCO is a quality marketing (FUD) machine. SCO is not a software company. Once you accept that, their situation makes sense.
As for the stock holders, the majority of them are institutions at this point. Slight majority though. The stock is so illiquid who could afford to be in it but big players.
Re:Where's the incentive to profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you serious? Destroy Linux, and the only current threat to the Microsoft monopoly is gone. Every time a company buys Microsoft instead of installing Linux because of fear of lawsuits, that's more profit for Microsoft. Microsoft had every incentive to fund the SCO lawsuits.
IANAL, but I'd like to see a lawyer comment on whether Microsoft could be convicted of conspiracy to violate antitrust laws.
Business week couldn't confirm it... (Score:5, Funny)
Ironically, a spokesperson for Lucifer, LLC, could be reached, and did indeed comment. "Oh, yes, we're snatching up all the souls we can. There's only two companies in this space right now, and being half of them, we're trying to beat out Heavenly Productions, LP. If they hadn't sunk so much capital into, and gotten so much great PR from that new movie, we might have been able to grab several more souls during the deal. We're betting, though, that soon enough, there will be promises that need to be kept, and then executives of 'certain companies' will be ready to sign their souls over."
When pressed, the spokesperson would divulge nothing further about the companies, except that one of them was in a desert\, and the other in a dreary woodland area. "All I can say is that it doesn't seem to bother these execs, since they seem to have chosen areas much like our [Patent Pending] HELL world."
Heavenly LP, privately held, had no comments. Lucifer LLC was up slightly on the day.
now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:now... (Score:3, Funny)
Countersuit potential? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Countersuit potential? (Score:5, Insightful)
The money given to SCO is probably a significant chunk of their total equity now - I don't know offhand how much ownership it purchased, but you might make the argument that SCO is a front for Baystar. Next you need to look at the contributions that Baystar got from MS and how big they are relative to the equity of that company. If you can show that SCO is acting as an indirect-front for MS, then you can probably sue MS for resulting damanges.
If give a friend $100k to "take care of somebody for me", and they give a friend $80k to "take care of this problem", and then my problem disappears from the face of the earth, the police can come after me. If I set up 12 layers of shell companies and went through them, I'm still on the hook. RICO laws and all that - the gangsters were trying to avoid getting caught with this kind of stuff since the start of the last century. The laws are there.
I would think that the best bet for prosecution would be from the state antitrust lawsuits against MS. While most have settled regarding past offences, I'm sure that this settlement doesn't cover future offences.
Not bad (Score:5, Funny)
While I understand that this isn't illegal as such, isn't it an SEC violation?
The SCOundrels' Follies (Score:4, Insightful)
(Have you watched their stock making a run at zero over the course of the week?)
The Flatlander
Does this surprise us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well, move along - nothing to see here..
But at least we didnt have to wait until 3:56 PM for our SCO fix..
3:56 PM - funny you should mention that... (Score:5, Interesting)
THAT my friends is desparation! To explain their obvious fooling around they came up with some sort of stock buyback scheme today hoping that no one will notice their tinkering.
it seems that it's not even about code (Score:4, Insightful)
CYA time, Mr. Goldfarb (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Goldfarb is trying to look like an honest man while distancing himself and Baystar from MS and SCO. He readily admits that "senior executives" from MS phoned him but won't name names. He's scared. Leaked documents and an unmanagable conspiracy of silence are forcing him to admit to snippets of truth which paint him and the firm in the best possible light.
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't take science to figure out that a company with $40bn in idle cash and nothing better to do with it would have no problems with tossing some of that dough into throwing its competition under a cloud of doubt.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft would gain a lot of SCO was proved right. But they must have had their legal team look at the situation and report that SCO was just wasting its time.
The best Microsoft can hope for is to spread FUD.
The worst Microsoft could see is the GPL reinforced in court, and a hell of a lot of bad PR for their company.
It's a bad deal from Microsofts point of view.
Microsoft didn't get where they are now though bad deals.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft needed a stalling tactic. Two years away from the next-gen OS, security problems riddling their current offerings, and Linux is picking up steam. They absolutely needed something like this. It may have been a "bad deal," but I'd say MSFT was never looking to profit from this investment.
If SCOX had actually won a case, it would have been a bonus, but that wasn't the point of the investment. MSFT wouldn't want anything out of this but to put off adoption until they could fill the gap left by their current offerings.
Because They Face No Consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
"But why would Microsoft want to back such a chancy scheme? Bad publicity when the case fails must more than make up for the FUD they've managed to spread."
Because they face no real consequences? They've never had to pay any reasonable penalty for their behavior. Giving away free copies of MS products?!? That's a marketing expense, for cryin' out loud! "Allowing" hardware resellers to add something to the desktop? Oooooh! The pain! Make it stop!
So what, exactly, does MS have to lose with even such a b
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly enough Halloween VII was making the rounds in Sept/Nov. 2002. It was in August 2002 that SCO brought in Morgan Keegan [threenorth.com] to try to find cash for them--and it was likely Morgan Keegan who both brought Boies on board and negotiated the original "license" deals with SUN and MS.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
He'll drown you too in his fear when you try to rescue him. Doesn't matter that if he drowns you, he drowns himself too - he's irrational.
IMHO, MS really is scared. They really don't have a lever to use to defeat Linux.
You can't buy them out. You can't give it away free, and beat them on price. (Linux IS free, and as a bonus, the source code is included.)
MS knows the power of "Free" - that's what got office in the door - OEM bundles of free office suites. Free inclusion of IE etc
SCO stock price (Score:5, Insightful)
it's about SEC (Score:3, Interesting)
Nail 'em! (Score:5, Interesting)
About stock. (Score:5, Informative)
If I purchase a milliion shares of SCO on the open market, SCO does not see a PENNY of that money. The only time SCO sees money from the sale of stock is when SCO issues NEW stock into the market.
So.. if the stock price goes up, it's good for a company, in that they can issue more stock, and get more capital without giving away such a large piece of the pie.
However, microsoft buying a million shares of SCO would not by itself fund sco at all.... unless they bought those shares FROM SCO, which it doesn't sound like they are doing.
Re:About stock. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, a good market price makes it much easier to raise more money in a follow-on public offering, PIPE or other kinds of transactions.
Re:About stock. (Score:5, Informative)
If the company is holding 50% of it's stock in reserves, and the stock price doubles because there is a perception that the stock is desirable, they've just doubled the value of their reserves.
Moreover, all the executives who own stock in the company have more reason to keep up the fight, because they will personally gain.
Re:About stock. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I purchase a milliion shares of SCO on the open market, SCO does not see a PENNY of that money. The only time SCO sees money from the sale of stock is when SCO issues NEW stock into the market.
Ahh but if SCOG buys SCOX stock, say at a low price during a profound slump in their share price and does so in a manner as to not cross the written words in the SEC constraints on such purchases then you can get into fun with the accounting department.
Now - you only buy back stock if you
Yes - a company doesn't benefit directly from swings in its stock price, but it can benefit by trading in that stock. Even when that goes sour, clever accounting practices can help you recover that loss in other ways. I haven't peered too closely at SCOs recent manoevres but I seem to remember that any dip in share price allows them to record the conversion of the Series A convertible stock deal with Baystar as income. So you can have it both ways.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Like no one saw this comming (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess Who Invests in Baystar? Paul Allen (Score:4, Interesting)
Now every time I read about SCO.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Don't worry about Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
by Gannoc (210256) on Thursday March 11, @10:59AM (#8532136)
With Bush in office, you don't have to worry about the communists keeping microsoft from making money.
This isn't flamebait, it is bitter, pessimistic political commentary. I have plenty of Karma to burn...
SCO is part of the Illuminati conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
Behold the next move from SCOX/MSFT (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.sco.com/products/lkp/faq.html)
Linux Kernel Personality FAQ
For UnixWare 7
What is the Linux Kernel Personality?
The Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) is a feature of the UnixWare 7 operating system which enables the installation and the direct, native execution of Linux(R) applications. The primary attributes of LKP are:
Exploit the power and scalability of the UnixWare kernel to run Llinux applications. the Linux Kernel Personality contains most of the RPMs required to execute native Linus applications, but it does not include a Linux kernel.
Applications compatibility: Linux applications install and run without modification. UnixWare 7 customers now have a powerful tool to assist in the migration from Linux to UnixWare.
UnixWare 7 feature availability: Linux applications can benefit from the features and options available for UnixWare including a journaling file system, RAID support, and increased scalability, security and reliability.
Versatility: Users can dynamically choose either environment, Linux or UnixWare 7 or mix both, as needed.
Didn't SCO suspend its Linux product line?
Yes. The Linux products were suspended due to intellectual property issues associated with Linux. The LkP feature doesn't contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues. If the prior statement were proven inaccurate, SCO would take appropriate steps. In the meantime, the LKP feature is available to assist customer migration from Linux.
Why is The SCO Group(R) doing this?
SCO recognizes that many customers want to migrate away from Linux, but can't afford to disrupt their day to day operations, nor can they afford the engineering resources to port and test the Linux applications in a UnixWare environment. The Linux Kernel Personality addresses all of these concerns. Native Linux applications runs unchanged on UnixWare, which provides the following benefits to the customer:
Customers can asses using UnixWare in their environment without making costly application program changes.
Customers who want to migrate to UnixWare, but some of the source code for critical applications they need to continue to run is no longer available.
Customers are considering migration to UnixWare but are concerned about the risk of changing both the operating system and the application at the same time.
Does LKP emulate a Linux application environment, much like lxrun?
No, LKP is not a Linux environment emulator. An LKP installation includes the Linux application environment running on a UnixWare kernel. Unlike the LxRun environment, LKP doesn't contain an emulation layer.
How can I install Linux applications? Do I have all the tools?
Yes, you can install Linux applications. Linux libraries and system tools, including the rpm installer, the shell utilities, and the configuration files, are provided in UnixWare 7. The UnixWare 7 installation loads the entire (former) Caldera OpenLinux Server system, with the exception of the Linux kernel.
How is Linux compatibility provided?
LKP is a standard feature ofUnixWare 7. LKP and the necessary OpenLinux RPMs are part of the basic media kit.
Do I get a full Linux distribution with UnixWare 7?
LKP does not provide a Linux kernel. With the exception of the Linux kernel, however, the entire Linux distribution is installed in a
Is the use of Linux applications transparent?
Yes. Linux ELF binaries are treated as first class executable programs. The Linux process coexists with other UNIX processes and shares the system equally. You run with Linux shells and desktops and use familiar Linux tools and utilities. The system keeps track of your environment for you, so that Linux and UNIX functions and utilities do not collide.
How can I access the Linux environment from UnixWare 7?
Run
Re:Behold the next move from SCOX/MSFT (Score:4, Insightful)
I can only wonder at the number of GPL violations that surely exist in that software. I would advise companies to steer clear of such legally encumbered software, and use the free and clear Linux or BSD operating systems instead.
This will all work itself out. (Score:5, Insightful)
it may seem in the beginning, is the kiss of death for the other company that gets involved
in a "deal" with Microsoft. They can't help it. Win-Lose is the only outcome that's acceptable to M$.
How this works out to Linux users is unknown, but SCO's fate is sealed:
Ignominy, disgrace, failure, collapse.
I've got GREAT news! (Score:5, Funny)
"No... I just saved a sh!tload of money by switching to Geico!"
SCO *HAS* To Buy Back Stock (Score:5, Interesting)
1. SCO Group must buy back shares from certain investors because of their stock price and the looming failure to file the PIPE registration.
2. This is an excellent way for Canopy to liquidate its holdings in SCO Group.
The average investor won't make a dime, and will likely be left holding the bag on this one.
Gates or Ballmer (Score:5, Insightful)
So what?! That's like saying a Sgt in the Marines actions in Iraq weren't directly ordered by Bush or Cheney. It's what we call in the military the chain of command or maybe the commander's intent. In other words, the commander lets his troops know what he wants done and how much freedom they have accomplishing this goal.
I believe Gates and Ballmer knew what was going on.
1984 RELOADED (Score:5, Funny)
Conflict of interest (Score:3, Interesting)
baystar is making investments based on outside concerns and not the fidicuciary interests of their shareholders.
The facts as they are being reported... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, am I missing something or is this a non-story?
(Yes, I think that something slimy is actually happening...though evidence of it would be good!)
New site logo (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO had done enough merits in slashdot to win its own specific (i.e. no caldera, when they had that name not were so deep in the dark side) logo, section, faq entry, exceptions in slash code and even users-optional tagline pack.
Even when they lose their lawsuit (that seems less inminent than when all of this started) and the company is closed, buried and sold even the chairs and the pencils of it, still will be for years news about sco and their directors here (i.e. Darl McBride raped in prison, or even die in poverty, from the remember-when-we-roared dept.).
Anyway, this story is more about Microsoft than about SCO, but well, Microsoft had the merits since the start of Slashdot and if there was nothing done about them yet, maybe never will.
Provides Protection from Short Sellers (Score:5, Insightful)
Once there are significant amounts of short sellers vs the float, the stock price becomes essentially manipulated by the short sellers. IE, the very action chases away buyers, which forces the stock down, which causes the market makers to start selling and lowering the price to attract buyers to the shares that the shorts are selling etc etc, until the stock price is run into the ground...
One way to short circuit that kind of activity, is to create some sort of floor in the price. A company can do this, by becoming a buyer of thier own stock at a given price. By providing buying action, the shorts are not rewarded, they stop selling the stock, and the behavior of the stock normalizes.
There is no gaurantee this will work. Though it generally works most of the time, but it can be a war of attrition. Similar things happen with national banks and the currency market. And sometimes the banks lose after spending BILLIONS attempting to keep it from happening (Argentina, Mexico, Thailand, just to name a few).
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, so Microsoft didn't actually put any money into it, they simply called Baystar and told them investing would be a good idea? That's a pretty thin rope to hang someone by.
Help me understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
Help me understand this....
You manage a fund that has $400 million available for investment. Microsoft does not put any money in your fund. Senior executives from Microsoft call you up and say "Please put $50 million into this company called SCO."
I'm sorry, but why did the fund's managers do what they did? It doesn't add up. You do not just invest 1/8 of your available capital because some guy calls you up and says, "hey, please do this."
Re:Help me understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
So it probably just wasn't some guy.
Here's the confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the confusion:
'A Microsoft spokesman says that the company has no "direct or indirect" financial relations with BayStar'
pithy analysis, a good chart (Score:3, Interesting)
See lilmissmolly0, before she is buried under a flood of stock manipulator noise:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?b
This one sort of tells the story - there was an ask of $9,000.00 on SCOX yesterday close and a bid of $0.01 - definitely interesting times for the SCOX management.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=on&
Riggggggght. (Score:3, Interesting)
If (and I stress if) the senior management in question was Paul Allen, he should be going to jail. Wall Street does not take pump and dump schemes lightly and that's exactly what this is; except in this case SCO is the proxy, rather than the principle in a zero-sum game.
MS political contributions aside, the SEC is the least likely federal agencies to bend to political pressure because their credibility is what keeps the market in check. Pissing them off is not a good move. It wouldn't have been Paul Allen, his lawyers couldn't possibly be that stupid.
Hmm. avoid the public light? (Score:3, Interesting)
This will allow SCO to repurchase its shares from time to time in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the open market, in block trades and in privately negotiated transactions, depending on market conditions and other factors, the company said.
Does this mean SCO can buy the stock options from McBride and others without having to go through the publicly traded market? Would this be a way for the execs and other higher-ups to hide their dumping of stock? In a private trade, couldn't SCO pay *more* than market value if they wanted to?
This makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft invested $50 million in SCO, that would make sense. $50 million can buy tham a lot of anti-Linux FUD. But what does Baystar gain? When SCO loses their absurd lawsuits and disappears, so does Baystar's 50 million.
Transcript of the Phone Call (Score:4, Funny)
BayStart operator: Hello, BayStart Capital, How my I direct your call?
Caller: Yeah. Dis is Mario. I wanna talk to da boss. Now!
Baystar operator: One minute please.
Goldfahnder: Hello. Goldfahnder here.
Caller: Is dis da Boss o' BayStart?
Goldfahnder: Excuse me?
Caller: Are you da Boss of BaySta?
Goldfahnder: Oh. Yes, my name is Lawrence Goldfahnder and I am the managing director of BayStart Capital. What can I do for you?
Caller: Yeah. Dis is Mario, I'm a friend of Bill, see. And Bill told me that youze guys gotta send some money over to SCO. Got that?
Goldfahnder: What? Who is this?
Caller: I told you already, Mario... A friend of Bill's. Ya don't get it, do ya? Bill says that you gotta give money to SCO.. or else! Got that? Or do I gotta come over and stick your head down the toilet an' clean your ears?
Goldfahnder (somewhat surprized): Ahm, erm. Are you suggesting that we should invest some money in SCO?
Caller: Yeah. Jez, for a smart guy like you, you sure are dumb. You could call it investment.. or whatever. Just send over money... a lotta money... now.
Goldfahnder (shakily): Yes, Mr. Mario. I'll see that it gets done, right away.
Caller: That's more like it. You do that, and don't make me come over and visit you... click.
Interesting, lies, possibly criminal (Score:3, Interesting)
This may ultimately prove to be one of the more significant developments in this sordid case when it comes down to any criminal investigation.
This makes no sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes NO sense... after all, when SCO dies, so do those 50 million clams...
Unless....
There were some back door agreement that indemnifies BayStar against total loss of that capital... say, for example, another memo were leaked that blew the whistle on such an agreement between them and a certain Redmond corporation..
The stock buyback bumped the price for one hour (Score:3, Interesting)
Note, that in typical SCO style, they didn't do a stock buyback, they announced a stock buyback.
Re:Microsoft bailed out Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
[OT] Re:Darl at McDonald's (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are misinformed about that lawsuit.
McDonald's knew people were burning themselves, and they continued to heat their coffee to extremes just short of boiling.
They provided a "to go" cup that would collapse from the pressure if you tried to lift the cup full of coffee with your hand.
To mitigate that they provided an equally flimsy lid that would support the shape of the cup.
It was the kind of lid where you peel some of it back to be able to sip the coffee.
The woman that was burned did this while seated in her automobile. The lid collapsed and fell off the cup when she peeled it back. Then the cup collapsed in her hand. Then the near boiling coffee spilled out onto her lap, and gave her second degree burns on her labia and genital area.
The executives at McDonalds knew this was happening and didn't change their policies on the serving of coffee.