BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
BayStar asserts SCO's Unix products business doesn't hold long-term value for shareholders, [BayStar spokesman Bob] McGrath said. SCO reported $9.7 million in Unix products revenue and $1.6 million in Unix services revenue in its quarter ended Jan. 31. 'We think there are limited prospects of that business ever generating growing and significant revenue,' McGrath said. 'And we believe it is diverting resources from going where they would have the most value--the intellectual property process'."
Posted Apr 22, 2004 13:57 UTC (Thu)
by bajw (guest, #11712)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 14:04 UTC (Thu)
by elanthis (guest, #6227)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 14:09 UTC (Thu)
by lolando (guest, #7139)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2004 16:07 UTC (Thu)
by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032)
[Link]
Posted Apr 23, 2004 9:40 UTC (Fri)
by irios (guest, #19838)
[Link]
People laugh all the time at these ludicrous happenings that side of the Atlantic, though really they should be shivering.
Posted Apr 22, 2004 14:06 UTC (Thu)
by mark625 (guest, #13741)
[Link]
Oh, well. I guess the Darwinian process applies to VC companies, too. Better sell that Baystar stock while you still can.
Cheers!
Posted Apr 22, 2004 14:56 UTC (Thu)
by crouchet (guest, #1084)
[Link] (1 responses)
We may think the lawsuit is total stupidity but the business community in general may not have gotten that message. At least SOMEONE thinks the lawsuit is businessworthy. That is not good news as it would tend to make others hesitate before deciding to adopt Linux. Maybe Linux needs better PR in this case. [humor]Besides, as groundless as the lawsuit is Baystar may be right that it is still worth more than everything else SCO has.[/humor] JC
Posted Apr 22, 2004 20:08 UTC (Thu)
by sommere (guest, #14168)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2004 15:40 UTC (Thu)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 16:14 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 16:33 UTC (Thu)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link] (9 responses)
Maybe this should be a wakeup call to ask ourselves "how did we get into this situation?" "How did we create a country where greed is a virtue and fostering community spirit is a crime?" And more importantly, "is there anything we can do about it?" I'm not providing any answers... just asking the questions.
Posted Apr 22, 2004 18:17 UTC (Thu)
by pflugstad (subscriber, #224)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 19:49 UTC (Thu)
by sphealey (guest, #1028)
[Link] (5 responses)
sPh
Posted Apr 22, 2004 23:03 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (3 responses)
Under the current US system, an entity with deep pockets can launch an
expensive lawsuit your way, and get you into a position where regardless
of merit, you're going to end up paying more to defend yourself than you
can afford. Further, if you are able to seek legal recourse against an
entity with deep pockets (say they infringed your copyright on a GPL'd
program), it may be worth their while sitting it out, making the case as
expensive for you as possible, in the knowledge that they can ensure you
get a pyrrhic victory, where the compensation does not match your costs.
Under a loser pays system, launching frivolous lawsuits is dangerous;
not only are you going to lose, but you'll have to pay your opponent's
costs. Further, it's worth your while bringing the case to a reasonably
rapid conclusion, since if you draw it out too much, the legal fees for
your opponent become an issue for you.
Bear in mind that loser pays does not mean that the loser
always pays. Instead, it means that the loser usually pays;
if (for example) SCO wins against IBM on a technicality, the judge can
still decide that SCO pays its own costs. However, SCO has to allow for
the danger that it will be forced to pay both sets of costs if IBM wins
conclusively.
Posted Apr 23, 2004 12:34 UTC (Fri)
by sphealey (guest, #1028)
[Link] (2 responses)
No, you're not. Look at the SCO vs. IBM case. SCO has hired a local law firm of typical quality and a nationwide firm generally considered to be of good quality. IBM has hired the best law firm on the planet. IBM is crushing SCO into dust by the strength and depth of its legal work alone (I personally think IBM has the facts, law, and justice on its side, but that is irrelevent). Under loser pays you would either be representing yourself, or you would be paying your uncle the divorce attorney $20/hour to represent you in a copyright case (and even at $20 the bill would add up rapidly). You would not have a chance in the world of winning. I am open to a good proposal for tort reform, but loser pays isn't it. sPh
Posted Apr 23, 2004 15:04 UTC (Fri)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
If the system is loser pays, however, and IBM throw their might
against me unfairly, I'm in a position to borrow money (possibly at
extortionate rates if that's all I can get) to fund the legal defence I
need, since I know that when I win, IBM will have to pay the costs I've
incurred, which includes the cost of borrowing the money.
Further, since a decent lawyer knows that they'll get paid for taking
on a winning case regardless of whether a client can afford it, it
becomes easier for me to get better lawyers; they are more likely to work
for a minimal fee during the case, and just build up a huge invoice for
when costs come round.
In fact, I'd argue that you've got loser pays and pay your own costs
the wrong way around; assuming I'm poor and my opponent is extremely
rich, under loser pays, although I can't afford to fight a weak case, I
can afford to spend whatever it takes to win a strong case. Under pay
your own costs, I can't afford a decent lawyer, so I fold even though I
should be able to win. The result (based on watching how it works over
here in the UK) is that people don't bring stupid or poorly planned cases
(like SCO vs IBM), because the risk is too high. On the other hand, when
companies try to use litigation to prevent public debate, it's worth my
while fighting on, since not only am I likely to win, but I will ensure
that said company is penalised for their attempt to silence me.
Posted Apr 24, 2004 22:15 UTC (Sat)
by pflugstad (subscriber, #224)
[Link]
Under the US current system, unless you're rich, good luck finding someone to represent you, as no lawyer will touch the case as even if they win, you don't have the money to pay them, so you're *really* screwed. And before you say something like counter-suing for costs, IANAL, but I understand that to be very hard to do and very rare. And what loser pays does do is get rid of the nuisance lawsuits that plague our legal system. Right now, if you get suid, the first question is, what's the cost of playing it out vs settling. REGARDLESS of who's right or the merits of the case. That's idiotic and it drives up costs for EVERYONE as the costs (whether it's settled or litigated) as people find out they can sue everone and make money on the deal. Loser pays makes lawyers *look* at the merits of the case rather than just filing against everyone in sight. The only people who like the current US system are the US lawyers. Everyone else hates it.
Posted Apr 23, 2004 6:33 UTC (Fri)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
For example, if I get sued by Microsoft here in Norway, In the lowest court I'd have to put up for my own costs (but I'd get that money back from Microsoft if they loose), but this lowest instance is quick and cheap. Typical costs is one standard court-fee. (around $100 currently) If I win, and Microsoft accepts this and pay, the case is over. If I loose, and don't appeal, the case is also over. In the typical "we'll crush him with our money" scenario though, what happens is that I win, but the opponent appeals, hoping that I won't have the resources to follow trough all the way. This, however, doesn't work, because in this case the state would put up for my costs to have the case carried trough. (they'll get this money back once the case is ultimately won) I suspect that even without this system, in a looser-pay scenario, it'd be profitable for private ventures to finance appeals. It'd be a bussiness opportunity to finance (and lead) cases on behalf of resource-strapped individuals/small bussinesses who won in the first instance, but had their case appealed by the opponent. Theories are one thing, practice another. It is a *fact* that there are lots of countries in the world where "loser-pays". It's also a *fact* that these countries do *NOT* typically show more "small guy gets crushed" cases than do the USA. Infact I would argue that the american system tends to ensure that the guy with the most resources win much more often than any other system I know of. Look at what happened to O.J or to Microsoft, and what is going to happen to Jackson.
Posted Apr 22, 2004 18:37 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 20:08 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2004 15:41 UTC (Thu)
by patriot (guest, #14594)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2004 17:15 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2004 17:16 UTC (Thu)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link]
But it's likely that Baystar's proposed remedy will
be just as bad.
In general, businesses have to provide useful products
to stay in business, or they fold.
There is a long list of businesses which have folded
because they tried to litigate their way to success.
Even "winning" can be pyrhhic, since the legal battle
is costly and the other side can often work around it.
Those are generalities, but the specifics are even worse for SCO.
SCO claims it "owns" Unix, but that's contested (by Novell).
SCO claims it "owns" any extension to Unix, but the legal
language and clarifications from AT&T and the BSD precedent
make this claim very implausible.
Heck, SCO can't even say it owns the trademark - someone else
owns that!
That's on top of recent analyses showing the likelihood of
copyright infringement to be remote.
And even if SCO 'won' the case -- which appears extremely
unlikely to me -- the kernel developers could just drop and rewrite
some code, since this isn't a patent dispute.
Annoying, but not fundamentally harmful, and frankly
I think there's increasingly NO evidence that this
case will ever be found in SCO's favor.
There are cases where companies have won big intellectual
property battles. But those generally happened where
ownership was fairly clear.
That is certainly not the case here.
Posted Apr 22, 2004 17:29 UTC (Thu)
by gups (guest, #14053)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 22, 2004 17:45 UTC (Thu)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2004 18:21 UTC (Thu)
by stock (guest, #5849)
[Link] (1 responses)
""We think they need to strengthen the senior team to get people with
experience and background in the legal issues," McGrath said. If SCO
addresses BayStar's concerns, McGrath added, the investor is open to
reversing its redemption request"
Hey its a new frenchise!! :
"How much cash is it worth to You, to stop Linux and OSS from happening?
[click-here] to donate"
BayStar seems to respond to these kind of adds. Do these people actually
know that such [buttons] actually lead to /dev/null on a Linux machine ?
:)
Robert
Posted Apr 22, 2004 18:40 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Posted Apr 23, 2004 8:31 UTC (Fri)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
A lawsuit-only company? What a country! Only in America...
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Non sense, almost all countries have them. They're called law firms. :)
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Law firms don't usually pretend their core business is Unix :-)
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Law firms usually don't file law suits on their own behalf..
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
That is NOT true. There IS a problem with the law system becoming a scavenging ground that is local to the USA. The rest of the world is not (yet?) the same.BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
So Baystar wants to pull out because TSG isn't suing enough people yet? Sheesh. I thought maybe they had gotten a clue.Sue more! Sue more!
I would say that this actually provides an interesting insight as to how someone might look at the whole SCO thing if that person is not so involved and familiar with Linux as are most of us. It gives us the view of an outside businessman.BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
you can forget the humor tags, that's _exactly_ what baystar said, they aren't being subtle about it.
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
BayStar now has a vested interest in proping up SCO's stock (to have a BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
chance of getting their money back) and they also seem to have realized
that they made a poor investment (and admitting that will deflate SCO's
stock).
So, what do they do. Out one side of their face they demand their money
back. Out the other, they imply that this frivolous lawsuit had merit.
The United States of America hasn't turned out anything like I was taught when I was a kid....BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
...except by my father, who was manic-depressive. I wonder why?
I predict that by 2010, half the people in this country will be on antidepressants, and the other half will be in some kind of PMA program.
This is how it looks to me, from the point of view of a worker. Our medical system is working hard to extend our lives, even up to 100 years' expectancy, so we can have the opportunity to:
Be sued at least once
Be accosted physically at least once
See at least one constitutional amendment raped
See at least one election stolen from us
Watch our standard of living decline
Remember maybe 20 or 30 species of animal or plant that doesn't exist anymore
Observe at least one case of genocide, on behalf of some dork businessman.
So, people get together to make something they can share with everyone, and in which everyone can participate if they like, so some idiot businessman can whine because there aren't enough *lawsuits?*
Almost makes me think all those computer viruses, worms, and SPAM messages are poetic justice. Kind of a payback for American apathy.
Me, I'll just sit here and wait for 1998 to come around again....
Whoa, man... calm down. I understand your frustration and pain, but let's not get apocalyptic.BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Loser Pays will fix a LOT of the problems with the US legal system.
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Um, yeah. Until you are the little guy, being unfairly crushed by lawsuits from an entity with much deeper pockets. Say, the HAL Computer Company suing Finus for infringement of copyright. Loser pays is not a solution
If you're being unfairly crushed, you're going to start winning cases. If
not, then as far as the system goes, you're being fairly crushed.
Loser pays is not a solution
> If you're being unfairly crushed, you're going to start Loser pays is not a solution
> winning cases. If not, then as far as the system goes,
> you're being fairly crushed.
You miss one very important thing; under the current US system, if IBM
were to throw their legal might against me personally, I would have
absolutely no incentive to fight. It'd be too expensive, and I'd probably
end up losing all my money even if I win.
Loser pays is not a solution
farnz said it pretty well. If you're sued by a big guy, and you have a case, then you can easily find good lawyers to represent you - they know they'll get paid.Loser pays is not a solution
Countries with loser pays typically have checks and balances in place to prevent a rich company from crushing a resource-strapped individual.Loser pays is not a solution
While I won't claim to not be annoyed and depressed over some of these things, I was actually kinda leading up to the link at the end.
I've been away from them for awhile, but thei do help out with some of the melancholy that can set in when watching the greedy stick it to the kind.
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Sorry....wrong place in thread.BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Once again, These people are great for people like me who tend to get depressed and annoyed about such people as the SCO leadership and their "friends," who seem to have completely lost their ability to sympathize with those of us who actually work for a living.
UTAH SUCKS
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
When the story was first posted on ZDNet, it claimed that SCO's assertions of copyright infringements in Linux were "at the center of" their lawsuits.
Now, it says the suits are against UNIX licensees. Somebody got the message, if belatedly.
Changed Their Story
This is not good news for SCO.
This is an admission by Baystar that SCO's product
line is not valuable. I think there are at least
two reasons SCO products are now worthless:
Baystar admits SCO's products are worthless
Dumping Darl means taking away all the fun. Do we really want that?
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
"We" could have a better one in "embracing and extending" the SCO Ma$ter OSes... i mean, building a XUL+ based(as a superset of XAML) shell replacement for those Windoze environments, would be a project i willing and gladlly participate in,... specialy because something like a XUL+ could be a perfect IDL(Interface Defenition Language - and a CORBA one if need), and a wounderfull thing for Linux and the BSDs too...
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Darl McBride gets the boot [news.com]:
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
Hey...I clicked, and now I'm going around and around in a vortex, faster and faster....what do I DO?
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
I just tought I should add to the theories and guesses already presented.
BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)
At first, we all seemed to think Baystar was "getting it" when they wanted their money
back. But now we know different. It seems to me, that the paragraphs in their deal that
Baystar is now basing their claims on, don't give them the right to pull their money simply
because they don't like Darl. So I'm thinking all of this fuss is really about something else.
For instance, we shouldn't forget that Baystar was MS's frontend in the first place. So
maybe Darl has made something to upset MS, and this is the retaliation. I'm primarily
thinking about the leaked memo, that connected MS and Baystar.
Anyway, this gets funnier every day. Now that we have more than one player making
these kinds of irrational claims, who knows what will happen tomorrow?
henrik