Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera The Almighty Buck

Royal Bank of Canada Cashes Out of SCO; SCO Begins Layoffs 585

Posted by michael
from the so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-lawsuits dept.
jbell99999 is the first one to submit news that the Royal Bank of Canada is divesting itself of SCO stock. They're selling part of their preferred stock to Baystar, which has already indicated that they want to redeem their shares, and converting the rest to regular stock, which they can presumably sell on the open market. In other SCO news, Versicherung writes "The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting, SCO is laying off 10 percent of its worldwide workforce. The cuts come less than a month after the company brought on a new chief financial officer and just before the company ended its second fiscal quarter April 30." See also stories at Eweek and Linuxinsider.com.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Royal Bank of Canada Cashes Out of SCO; SCO Begins Layoffs

Comments Filter:
  • by unixwin (569813) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:35PM (#9088760) Homepage
    The link Slasdot.org [slashdot.org]

    or just the quote below...


    Differently seen companies chasing their tails in copyright infringments, trade protocol violations and intellectual property rights are generally the ones which are going to fall pretty soon.

    Short on cash and not being able to earn/fund the millions they were used to in the dotgone era they are metamorphosing into scavengers and opportunists ....
    SCO is a shining example The crummy economy is bringing out the best in a lot of Companys, their legal team thinks, "we are getting irrelevant (as a team) , lets think up something to make some money and make sure we dont' get laid off," "hmmm... patent # 5551212 seems to be worth looking into" and there starts their Road to Hell [lyricsdepot.com] [lyricsdepot.com]

    Easy money (or so they think) ,lot of publicity (for sure) and a lot of hits on their website , so there's a new concept for you

    the legal team is now the marketing team

  • Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaHat (247651) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:35PM (#9088768) Homepage
    Say what you want about the policies or politics of SCO, it is always unfortunate when large numbers of people are laid off due to the problems of the company (ie those who made the bad decisions get to keep their cushy jobs).
  • by cwernli (18353) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:36PM (#9088779) Homepage
    Even if they weren't everybody's darling, they at least didn't manufacture any weapons.
  • by WordODD (706788) <wordodd@gmail.com> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:37PM (#9088782)
    Uh oh looks like Microsoft is going to need to find a new puppet company to attack Linux through now that SCO's end may be in sight.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:37PM (#9088787)
    Remember, they still have a decent chunk of money in the bank. Until that's gone, this isn't over.
  • by JMZorko (150414) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:39PM (#9088818) Homepage
    I live in Santa Cruz, and know some of these people who were laid off recently. I don't like what SCO is doing, either ... and I have fond hopes that they fail miserably with regards to their Linux IP litigations. Still, some good friends of mine are now without work, without prescription benefits, and in this jobless recovery, without much hope. I feel very badly for them.

    Regards,

    John, human

  • Stupid RBC (Score:2, Insightful)

    by P. Norbert Ebersol (265428) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:42PM (#9088855)
    As a Canadian, AND someone with actual money in RBC investments, I'm totally disgusted. It's as bad in my eyes as having investments in Enron or any other such corrupt company propped up by shady deals and questionable legalities.

    Of course, theres no point in whining about it now, as they've made their money and are getting out of it probably with a bit of profit at the expense of people even stupider.

    Still, it makes me question the bank I've used exclusively over the past 20 years. I'm forced to take a closer look at what they're doing with my money.
  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:43PM (#9088866)
    I prefer to own stock in companies that:
    • Have a product
    • that is involved in sales
    • to customers
    • generating revenue
    SCO seems to have none of these things.
  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:44PM (#9088879) Journal
    Tough Shit. They where working for the devil and they knew it.

  • Martyrdom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyCap (97274) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:45PM (#9088887)
    I do fear that the next spin on this will be martyrdom, Poor little SCO couldn't get justice before it was forced to its knees by the brutal linux movement sponsored by the behemoth IBM, or something to that effect.
    --
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:47PM (#9088905) Journal

    I'll catch hell and lose all my karma for this but perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to cheer this on. Darl is an evil bastard but I feel bad for the people who have the misfortune of working there (and who might not have anywhere else to go -- the economy sucks) that are about to get pink slips because of his ill-advised legal battle against IBM.

    I doubt you'd be so quick to cheer if a member of your family worked for them -- or if you owned stock and have been watching Carl & Co. run it into ground.

  • Even worse who realy wants to hire anybody with the taint of SCO on there resume? I'm not saying they didn't have some good people but lets face it managers do look at where your comming from and if your laid off from SCO that tell me that you were to dumb to leave let me correct that run while sending your resume to every head hunter you have ever known, away from that ship. Moral is start thinking about leaving when your company goes bad not when they lay you off as they tank.
  • by pr0c (604875) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:50PM (#9088941)
    If I were an employee there I would have been looking for a new job for months and months and months... Not because I hate SCO but because I would consider the job to be too unstable. If they couldn't have the foresight to do the same... screw em.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:56PM (#9089013)
    Methinks it would be smart not to say "SCO's IP claims are meritless" while you still own so many shares of SCO stock. They can tell the truth AFTER they get their money back.

    Then again, it would be SMARTER never to have had the stocks in the first place...
  • by bshroyer (21524) <[gro.reyorhsterb] [ta] [terb]> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:56PM (#9089020)
    Jobless recovery my ass

    April employment stats released this morning reveal 625K new nonfarm jobs [yahoo.com] the last two months.

    And with unemployment currently at 5.6% [bls.gov], that's lower than it's been the last 30 years, [bls.gov] excluding the dot-com bubble 1996-2001. (You'd be hard-pressed to find an economist who would indicate that unemployment of 4.2%, as we had in 1999, is good for the economy, much less sustainable.

    If your friend can't find a job, perhaps he needs to switch location, career, or both. It's quite possible there aren't a lot of open positions for Unix gurus in Southern California these days.
  • Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cbovasso (608431) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:58PM (#9089041)
    I completely agree. It is great to hear that SCO is losing their court battles but it is tough to hear people getting laid off. Now all those people have SCO as their last place of employment, that has gotta hurt.

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:59PM (#9089049) Journal

    If I were an employee there I would have been looking for a new job for months and months and months... Not because I hate SCO but because I would consider the job to be too unstable. If they couldn't have the foresight to do the same... screw em.

    "Screw 'em"? Nice attitude. What if they have been looking and can't find another job? And my comment gets modded down? Geesh!

  • by molarmass192 (608071) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:00PM (#9089066) Homepage Journal
    Ironically, your friends in Santa Cruz had absolutely nothing to do with Darl and his foaming-at-the-mouth Linux vendetta yet now they're the ones paying the price. The silver lining is that SCO as a company is finished, so leaving the company was inevitable. Still, I know lots of people out of work and it's still very hard out there, regardless of all the "Jobs Growth" headlines in the papers.
  • A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tlambert (566799) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:01PM (#9089075)
    Just to add another point of view... this may be a bad thing.

    [usual disclaimers here; I'm a layperson who has to deal with issues related to things like this occasionally]

    The difference between a real company and an intellectual property holding company is that a real company has some skin in the game when it comes to treating patents as trading cards. An IP holding company doesn't.

    As a simple example, consider two companies, "A" and "B", with a patent portfolio of 100 patents each, and real products that they are trying to sell.

    When company A says to company B "you're infringing patent A17", B can use its portfolio defensively, and come back with "yes, but you're infringing patent B34; let's trade licenses".

    If company A is an IP holding company, there's nothing company B can do but pay whatever extortionate price: Company A has no product, and is therefore not infringing any of B's IP. B is pretty much hanging in the wind.

    The only place this isn't true is where B has some IP that A acknowledges is the basis of derivative IP held by A, _and_ A values the ability to continue sublicensing it without B raising sublicense fees for the original work in response to the extortion suit.

    IF SCO is, effectively shedding their vulnerable assets, and IF they really have IP assets, this could be an entrenchment where it could end up being very hard to dig them out for a very long time.

    The only real recourse to this sort of business model is for company B to attack companies that are infringing B's portfolio, and which are owned by the same people who own company A - effectively countering extortion with blackmail.

    Yeah, I'm one of those people who think we need intellectual property law reform.

    -- Terry
  • by DevilM (191311) <`devilm' `at' `devilm.com'> on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:01PM (#9089076) Homepage
    You missed the news... the jobless recovery is over. The latest jobs report showed aggressive growth.
  • by schon (31600) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:03PM (#9089100)
    for every person betting it is going to go up, there is someone betting it will go down.

    And as ~46% of the stock is held by insiders, it tells me that a whopping 92% of shareholders who aren't insiders think it's gonna go down.

    Thems not good numbers. :o)
  • Re:good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jvagner (104817) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:03PM (#9089104)
    I'll say this: If their workers had any convictions, SCO wouldn't have to lay anyone off because they would have been gone first.

    Really, who the hell is still there? Maybe only those who've been looking for the last 6 mos and couldn't get a job anywhere else...?

    Anyone with hardline skills should have found work a while ago and walked.
  • Re:Thank Churchil (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:04PM (#9089117)
    This is not the end.
    This is not even the begining of the end.
    But it is the end of the beginning.
  • by el-spectre (668104) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:10PM (#9089168) Journal
    Most of us aren't cheering because someone is losing their job, but because the company that is being such a shit is in trouble.

    Kind of like how you might feek bad for telemarketers (the employees), but were happy when the do - not - call list went into effect.
  • by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot@@@monkelectric...com> on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:11PM (#9089176)
    Still, some good friends of mine are now without work, without prescription benefits, and in this jobless recovery, without much hope. I feel very badly for them.

    Welcome to the fucking club.

  • by Anonym0us Cow Herd (231084) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:12PM (#9089186)
    I don't know how you come up with 10 pissed off lawyers.

    Last year, in June, but I think even up until October, SCO claimed to have 330 employees.

    When the recent layoffs were announced, they said they were laying off "way less than ten percent" of their 275 employees.

    275? I thought they had 330?

    Since SCO currently has 275 employees, the "way under ten percent" must mean they are laying off 27 people, which would be 9.81%.

    This leaves them with 248. This means they have lost 82 people (330 - 248) or 24.84% ("way under 25%" using SCO speak) of their workforce in less than a year. Perhaps even in just six months.

    Now since SCO didn't have layoffs until now, how do you suppose they dropped from 330 to 275 employees in the meantime? (I won't say anything about rats and sinking ships.)

    Now why do I just bindly assume in SCO speak that "way under 10 percent" actually means 9.81%? Because if it were under nine percent, they would have said "way under nine percent!". So instead of laying off 27, they could have laid off 26 (9.45%) or laid off 5 (9.09%), in which case my above quackulations would need adjustment.
  • by autopr0n (534291) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:14PM (#9089199) Homepage Journal
    Baystar has what, $80 million in SCO?. If sco wins, they'll be worth billions. So even if there's only a 1% they win, it's still worth the risk.

    But, you say, they'll lose all their money if they lose!

    That's not true either. Baystar can invest another X in Linux companies, which, if SCO wins will see their stock rise by, suppose, Y%. As long as X * Y > X + 80 million, Baystar will make a profit. And, if SCO wins, they make an emense profit.
  • Re:Bre-X (Score:2, Insightful)

    by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:16PM (#9089215)
    See, spell-checkers work wonders, don't they?

    I see, so you are objecting to the message based on what a word in it was spelled like. I am afraid that I cannot compete with this, such clearly blinding fire of wisdom and logic that is your mind.

    Forgive me for I have trespassed on the sacred ground of thought in English language, a field that is defended fiercely by truly fearsome Palladins: the spelling Nazis.

  • by vlad_petric (94134) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:18PM (#9089235) Homepage
    Think how much loss in revenue to Linux companies they created ... There are quite a few executives who thought "let's wait until the trial is over before we make any move to Linux".

    Such lawyers destroy, people employed by Linux companies create, and generate real economical value.

  • by Anonym0us Cow Herd (231084) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:20PM (#9089258)
    Tough Shit. They where working for the devil and they knew it.

    How offensive!



    Please. In the future...


    Do not compare the devil to SCO. Even the Bible says something about not slandering celestial beings (book of James?).
  • by menscher (597856) <menscher+slashdot&uiuc,edu> on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:22PM (#9089277) Homepage Journal
    I thought Baystar wanted out? Why would they be buying more stock? Anyone else confused? Or am I missing something obvious?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:23PM (#9089282)
    The only thing I know about jobs is that who is president doesn't have much to do with whether I have one.

    If you going to dislike Bush fine, but PLEASE find a rational excuse for doing so.

  • by digitalmuse (147154) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:26PM (#9089310)
    while I can understand your argument, and I agree that this does not bode well for the company's employees, I still think that in the long-term this is the 'best' course for this whole sorrid affair to follow.
    yes, it has nasty repercussions for the folks in the SCO cube-farm, but what kind of legal seal-bashing would be encouraged by letting SCO get away with this? If they got away with it this time, some other C?O with an ichy palm would think that these kinds of anti-FOSS/GPL antics were a neat way to mint money. Can you imagine the digital landscape in 2-5 years if we let Darl cart away the cash because big-bully-bill set him up to take cheap shots at the penguins?
    Perhaps BayStar will be a little bit more thorough in vetting the business plans of the companies they invest in? Maybe people will stop trying to rewrite/reinterpret their old contracts to get a better footing for creativity killing lawsuits? Maybe companies will return to the good old days of creating and selling products that consumers want and are willing to pay for, not just threatening people with lawsuits from ToonTown, UT.

    Yes, our fellow techies are losing their jobs, but did you ever cry over Vader's poor unknowning Stormtrooper henchmen as they ate blaster-fire like the faceless minions they are? C'mon, if you're an employee of a company pulling antics like SCO, then you should either get your CV in order and start seriously looking for employment elsewhere or just lie down like a dog and get the whuppin' that's likely to come down the tracks.
  • So much of the company's value is in its claim to Unix/Linux and so little in its actual products. If the suit fails, SCO will go.

    Sell!

  • by slam smith (61863) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:29PM (#9089340) Homepage
    I have a few friends who use to work for Caldera. They were real Linux people. A few monthes before the law suits started, they all started bailing out. I suspect that the people left there in the Utah offices are mostly just there to feed the lawsuits. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Of course the don't seem to be the ones getting laid off.

    SCO is doomed with or without Darl. The sooner this ends the better. Think of all the resources this is wasting in companies like, IBM, Novell, DaimlerChrysler, Autozone, SGI, Redhat, etc. That could be much more profitably put towards new products, R&D, etc. How many new jobs might be created, instead of wasted on these legal struggles?

    And whil
  • by cwernli (18353) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:30PM (#9089344) Homepage

    Actually SCO systems were used in some tanks. There were stories going around about patches etc being downloaded in the field in the early 90's.

    That's probably this one [ncl.ac.uk]. Way back in REM-time, with BBS's still going strong.

    The control system for the cabin of the Boeing 777 also used to run on UnixWare.

    Not anymore [lynuxworks.com]; but I never really understood what a browser has to do with an operating system.

  • Re:Martyrdom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:31PM (#9089362)
    You must have been reading the writings of Enderle (the not-so-savvy tech analyst).

    He's been saying pretty much that for a while now. Called Linux users terrorists because he got hatemail for being a moron (well, he had more "justification" than that, but what I just said is pretty much what it boiled down to in the end...) I think they're his favorite scapegoats because they often point out how dumb he is, and that threatens his livelihood of writing BS articles...

    In case you're wondering, why yes, I did spend quite a while researching him to see what his connections to SCO were after he started writing some of this nonsense. My conclusion was that he's not being paid by anyone, he's just a contrarian type who liked generating some controversy, because people calling him stupid reinforces for him the idea that he's smarter than them all, having "seen through" whatever "popular misconception" he's writing about today.

    The best strategy for refuting him is to stick to points of provable, technical error (e.g. those points which do not depend on oppinion at all, however well-founded that oppinion might be) and politely call him on them. Preferably every single time he makes those mistakes (and trust me, there are plenty...). In doing so, CC whoever he's writing for (since he does guest columns and such, mostly), and chide him for not doing better fact-checking.

    In other words, avoid any sort of ad hominem, and stick to the facts. Enough of that might get publications to reconsider his role as an "analyst" ... at least those publications who wish to be accurate (Forbes, etc. need not apply).
  • by ChangeOnInstall (589099) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:37PM (#9089401)

    I live in Santa Cruz, and know some of these people who were laid off recently. I don't like what SCO is doing, either ... and I have fond hopes that they fail miserably with regards to their Linux IP litigations. Still, some good friends of mine are now without work, without prescription benefits, and in this jobless recovery, without much hope. I feel very badly for them.

    Regards,

    John, human


    It can be a terrible thing for someone to lose their job, especially given that they probably were in ideal positions before Darl came along. But honestly, these folks shouldn't be at all surprised that they are being laid off. The writing has been on the wall for about nine months now, and for the last six or so it should have been blatantly obvious that anyone who doesn't add value to the litigation should not even count on a short term future with SCO.

    I feel bad for these folks because the management decided to wreck their company, but that happened last year.
  • by Cid Highwind (9258) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:45PM (#9089487) Homepage
    They don't want out. Baystar was using the threat of dumping their stock to keep SCO managment in line. They wanted SCO to halt what was left of their software development and sales operations and "concentrate on IP licensing and enforcment". Darl and co. agreed, Baystar withdrew their threat, and now we're seeing the last of SCO's programmers getting downsized.
  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:49PM (#9089516) Journal
    Somethings are right and some are wrong.

    I have stood up for what I believe and have paid the costs more than once. IOW, I have quit and been fired for refusing to do the wrong thing & I do have a family.

  • by phoneyman (706381) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:57PM (#9089582)
    What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

    First off, what's wrong with manufacturing weapons? The reality of the world today is that weapons are still necessary. In fact it's highly unlikely that weapons will ever be completely unnecessary.

    Second, since when does the act of not manufacturing weapons become an excuse for immoral behaviour? I'm pretty sure if I came home and said "Hey Hon, I banged some hookers on my way home but at least I didn't manufacture any weapons!" I'd still end up homeless.

    What an assinine comment, insightful my ass.

    Pierre
  • by Uber Banker (655221) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#9089607)
    the economy sucks

    The economy most certainly does not suck. These are not the dot com days, but that was fantasy land anyway and best not returned to (it will only cause another crash). Non-farm payrolls today were excellent, the unemployment remains at 5.7% (low), interest rates are low and rises over the next two years will be gradual and low in historical terms. The household balance sheet is robust, consumer spending reasonable and corporate investment good. Successful global trade has the benefit of keeping prices of goods and services down allowing income to be spent on even more.

    The economy most certainly does not suck.

    Besides, a company losing 10% of its ~270 employees is less than the local fast food store going out of business... at least the employees of the local fast food joint had more belief in what they were doing - any SCO employee with ethics would have got out far sooner.
  • by thebatlab (468898) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:11PM (#9089680)
    "It shouldn't be difficult to counter the spin when the facts are on your side."

    Are you sure about that? Facts generally get overridden by whoever is yelling the loudest.
  • Re:Bre-X (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:20PM (#9089729)
    In the stock market, the rule is slightly different: If it looks to good to be true, invest early, and cash out quickly, because there's a million suckers that are going to inflate that stock before it crashes down.
  • by nlindstrom (244357) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:30PM (#9089766)
    You're a moron. It's your job, while employed at a company, to monitor what said company is doing. If they're busy fucking over the world, then that should serve as the writing on the wall.

    I can't stand people who are laid off and then whine "but I didn't see it coming!" Yeah, you had your eyes shut. Keep 'em open next time, eh?

    SCO employees have made their beds; now it is time for them to lie in them.

  • by McSpew (316871) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:37PM (#9089807)

    Baystar has what, $80 million in SCO?

    What? The original Baystar/RBC investment was $50 million combined, of which, Baystar's part was $20 million. RBC picked up the other $30 million. Today, RBC converted one-third of its investment into SCOX common stock. The remaining two-thirds was sold to Baystar for an undisclosed sum of money, but you can bet it's a helluvalot less than the original $20 million Baystar spent for the same quantity of Series A-1 shares in October.

    To be blunt, RBC took it in the shorts on this investment. Baystar screwed them hard. Baystar hooked RBC up with the original PIPE, and then turned around and flushed the value down the toilet with their notice to SCO that they intended to get their money back. They didn't give any indication to RBC about the grounds they were using to justify their demand for the return of capital, so RBC had to stand by and watch their own deadline for making a similar demand expire.

    Once that deadline passed, Baystar effectively had first-dibs on picking over SCO's carcass in an ensuing fight. RBC would have to wait until after Baystar got its money back (even though Baystar's investment was smaller) before making any attempt to recover its own investment. This forced RBC's hand. They could sit around and watch their entire $30 million get flushed down the drain, or they could sell (at a loss) most of their investment to Baystar and convert the rest to common stock (at a price that's nearly 2.5x the market price for those common stock shares) in the hopes that they'll get something if SCO wins the lottery.

    Unless RBC never expected to make money on this deal for some obscure tax benefit, they got hosed badly. I'd expect to see the idiot at RBC who signed off on this deal resigning very soon to "pursue other opportunities."

    Baystar, meanwhile, doubles their position in SCO's Series A-1 convertible preferred stock for a sum that's almost certainly a lot less than the $20 million they paid for the other 20,000 shares, thus reducing their average share price and giving them an ironclad fist around SCO's throat.

    Baystar's not as stupid as we originally thought. RBC, meanwhile, comes off looking much stupider than we originally thought.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:52PM (#9089901)

    When someone takes a job as a telemarketeer they are deliberately setting out to do something they should know pisses people off. So to hell with telemarketeers.

    Most people, when they take a job as a telemarketer (or any other job the performance of which is likely to annoy or offend us) are doing so to feed themselves and their family. Not everyone is lucky enough to have an education, a high level of technical expertise, or the time or money to obtain one. Not everyone needs a fulfilling career. Some people just need a job.

  • by el-spectre (668104) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:53PM (#9089908) Journal
    You think folks take jobs as telemarketers because they want to be annoying? Hell no, they need a job.

    I know it's fun to make extreme statements, but a little compassion ( or at least empathy) might be in order here.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:54PM (#9089913)
    You miss understand numbers. I'm not expert, but there are 14.42M shares and 3.95M shorted according to yahoo. That already doesn't match. Second, you can't short a stock without someone else willing to go long. Someone has to have the share to loan them to you. Actually, shorts aren't considered shareholders, but the longs are.
  • by tkrotchko (124118) * on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:05PM (#9090000) Homepage
    Remember that IBM may have a substantial claim against SCO, Novell, claims it actually owns the IP, and even Red Hat may get a whack.

    Best case scenario is (a) Novell does in fact show that it owns SYS V (because all claims against Unix would be gone because Novell has released GPL code (b) IBM wins the suit and owns the remaining SCO assets (c) Daryl freaks and essentially closes the company (d) Baystar is left holding the bag (e) some DA grows a set and starts an investigation and indicts a lot of people

    You've got to admit, that would be justice in every quarter. Complete win for Linux.
  • Re:Bre-X (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ergo98 (9391) on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:11PM (#9090037) Homepage Journal
    So just note that it was Royal Bank who against all common sense invested in SCO in the first place

    It's called a hedge, and it's absolutely rudimentary investing. You see in the one hand RBC has a lot of stock in organizations that would be seriously financially penalized if RBC won their case, so in the other hand they wanted to balance that by holding some of the potential threat -- if SCO somehow won, RBC would have a winner to slightly offset the losers.

    RBC is cashing out because it's become obvious that SCO is sitting on nothing but promises so there is little risk to the other equity.
  • by eagl (86459) on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:15PM (#9090059) Journal
    The company is going away, so the only thing remaining is to ensure that the people responsible for unleashing the lawsuits and threats don't come away from this mess with any extra cash in their pockets. They started the whole lawsuit thing to get rich off of other people's work, and it would be a shame if the top management who dreamed up the scheme got away with more than cab fare in their pockets.

    Of course the lawyers are getting away with most of the profit, but everyone knows that shooting lawyers is the only way to keep them from getting rich off of everyone else's problems so there's no polite solution there.
  • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:21PM (#9090087)
    You think folks take jobs as telemarketers because they want to be annoying?

    The original poster didn't say they want to be annoying, he said that they are deliberately pissing people off. And for that, they deserve all of the verbal abuse that they get. If they're going to assist in lowering people's quality of life, they shouldn't expect any better in return.
  • Re:What if....... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _|()|\| (159991) on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:21PM (#9090088)
    What if SCO never fired the first shot in this IP war? ... Would it be possible for SCO to continue to exist supplying to main stream folk or would they have simply continued to fade away?

    We could consider numerous "what-if" scenarios. Most of the good ones would require smarter, more visionary executives than Caldera or SCO ever employed. Part of Red Hat's continued success is due to strategic investments in research and development, especially the kernel improvements by Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, and Ingo Molnar. SuSE has made similar investments, garnering the attention of IBM and Novell.

    I don't think OpenServer and UnixWare were good enough, especially under the care of such a small company, to compete with Linux or BSD. System V was a significant, though largely symbolic, asset. Caldera could have parlayed it into success in the Linux market. (Who knows: UnitedLinux might have grown to 1.1 or 2.0.) Instead, it was eaten from the inside out by old-SCO opportunists.

  • by Elentar (168685) <slashdot.ultraviolet@us> on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:37PM (#9090158)
    As opposed to dirty drug-infested cowtowns (alcohol) or dirty drug-infested cities, or dirty drug-infested redneck towns, or just plain dirty drug-infested _any place_.

    Or, if you prefer, dirty Christian-infested towns. Why it's illegal to smoke a joint but perfectly legal for zealots to brainwash children, to deny adults the right to make their own medical choices, to teach women that they are secondary to men, to send the poor and minorities off to die while the rich laugh, to allow corporations to dictate legislation and to force the values of a few hypocrites onto people who don't agree with them, I will never understand.

    I live in Santa Cruz, and I believe in letting people live the life they have chosen for themselves, to the greatest extent possible. You will never find me living in a bible town in Georgia, because I refuse to surround myself with backward, living-in-denial unhappy religious fanatics taking out their unnatural angst in the area I live in.

    To those of you who practice religion and let it simply influence your innate sense of moral purpose, I give my compliments. If you must chose one, always chose the Covenenant of Grace over the Covenant of Works.

    -Elentar
  • IP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dieppe (668614) on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:51PM (#9090240) Homepage
    The company has come under fire in the last year since initiating controversial litigation to protect intellectual property rights on parts of the Linux operating system, source code that had been considered open source or freely exchanged technology. Recently the SCO Group notified companies using the technology in question that they would be sued if they didn't pay up.

    This might be poignant, but at least if I were to murder someone and the news media were reporting on it they would say "...an alleged murderer"... Why can't they say "alleged intellectual property rights" as SCO hasn't proved anything yet and there is still doubt here.

    ----
    SCO... An alleged company with an alleged business plan.

  • by zurab (188064) on Friday May 07, 2004 @10:24PM (#9091066)
    Your sarcasm in (A) and (B) are contradictory. Are you saying that Baystar doesn't want SCO to win the IBM lawsuit? The way I see it is that SCO (i.e. their management) never wanted to win a lawsuit, they just wanted to cash out before it was too late for SCO the company.

    Unless you are saying that both Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada knew this prior to their investments; AND Baystar just wanted to replace the management and take over the company "assets" from the very beginning when they considered their investments. In that case, it's who's playing who. But I don't think so, I think they realized they were fooled and Baystar now realizes they have a tough decision to make whether it's worth to grab onto the last straws. Because the way the lawsuit is heading right now is that SCO is not providing anything substantial, while IBM will likely nail SCO in their countersuit. So what would you do from this point on if you were Baystar in this situation? I'd want my money back too, and what Baystar is doing is the only way to get it back.
  • by fucksl4shd0t (630000) on Saturday May 08, 2004 @06:28AM (#9092409) Homepage Journal

    Hey, I know the feeling of quitting a job that sucked and I was glad I was in a position once to do that once upon a time. It's great! But it's a luxury, and some things are worth sticking with the most soul crushing job in the world.

    I, for one, wouldn't want to set your example for my kids. Yeah, some jobs you should keep in spite of how much they suck, but some jobs require you to leave them regardless of whether or not you'll be working again soon after. Your actions have greater ramifications, and the moral lessons you teach are just as important, if not more important, than the fiscal lessons you teach.

  • Re:Bre-X (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Saturday May 08, 2004 @01:57PM (#9094467)
    you spout off about how wonderful you are

    No, actually I learned a lesson that ./ readers do not read past the first line of any post. The message actually was about how we Canadians are not wonderful and if we think we are better, we will end up doing stuff which our American cousins are not so proud of. And immediately I got hammered to the ground for a spelling mistake. Quite a sad lesson. And totally unexpected one. It was an indefensible position indeed, except it was my spelling Nazi attackers who were in it.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...