SCO has just over $60 million in resources to sustain it while it fights IBM in what clearly is one of the most volatile wars in the history of technology. What has been very interesting is that SCO publicly has been given almost no chance of winning, while privately the company has convinced several folks, including me, that it has a strong chance. One of the most interesting investors was BayStar Capital, which not only invested $20 million of its own money in the firm, but prevailed on the Royal Bank of Canada to kick in another $30 million.
Brilliant work once again Rob! . I can't believe all of these doubters. Have they seen SCO evidence? No! Of course not! And even if they had, most couldn't really analyze the evidence the way a true analyst such as yourself could. And you have the support of other top analysts who have also seen the evidence, such as Laura DiDio. In addition, Microsoft recommended the investment to BayStar. With that kind of endorsement, I have shifted my life's savings to SCO stock. The current lack of confidence in SCO has allowed me to buy SCO stock at bargain prices with really cheap loan money. By next year, SCO will be sitting on top of a mountain of money, and I will be able to sell my stock and retire! . I must admit that I had my doubts in the beginning. I just didn't realize what a strong case SCO had, until I got the word from you and Laura. You two rock! Serves those commie Linux kooks right! Hopefully, we can save the software industry before they destroy it with their evil viral GPL. Maybe Microsoft can help our legislators to innovate some laws to stop Linux before it is too late. I sure hope so. . Anyway, I would like to thank you once again for your brilliant and insightful work. You and Laura are like two lighthouses in the darkness showing us the way with your billiant light!!! . Love Microsoft!!! They lead us to technical salvation!
The thing is you need to prove a connection. I could say that Russia is directing George Bush because there are calls that go back and forth and then say, it is "inconclusive". Someone needs to show that BayStar is being directed by Microsoft and that SCO is being directed by BayStar (which clearly isn't true given BayStar wants new management). - So no there is no evidence that Microsoft even recommended SCO as an investment as a company let alone is directing things behind the scenes. All FUD. Nicely done though.
One more thing, Rob, are you going to make this response disappear like you made that paragraph disappear from your previous article, you know, the one that betrayed your total ignorance of legal procedure? - The paragraph that read (paraphrased) - "they will hide the essetial information from IBM during discovery and spring it during trial" - - Please tell us again how much litigation experience you have. I'm one who is certainly impressed by how much you leanrned in your litigation experience. - - Have you given SCOldera lessons in how to hide evidence during discovery and spring it on IBM during the trial? - Considering that you have so much litigation experience you should offer your assistance to SCOldera in that regard.
Ownership is a huge question, other than that this is mostly anti SCO FUD. SCO does have cash flow around $11M, they are not profitable which is different (they have huge legal fees). I don't know how much you make but $11M is not "almost no" to me. They are a small firm. - Suggesting the Royal Bank of Canada is "playing litigation lottery" is an amazing stretch.
Hello, SCO are PROVEN LIARS after the "SCO Forum". For a clear description of this go to http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html. - Why do you have such faith in PROVEN LIARS? - And you can't explain the endless delaying tactics of SCO in their litigation against IBM. I think IBM know a lot more about this case than you do, and if SCO had any reasonable evidence, IBM would have settled a long time ago. - IBM are willing to fight this case because they know they will win.
Thanks go-microsoft, that was hilarious. I just hope there isn't anyone out there who really did put their life savings into the SCO scam. Personally I shorted them at 15.72 and recently covered at 7.25, and I'd like to take a moment to thank Rob, Laura, Dan Lyons, and all the other shills who kept that POS afloat long enough for me to get in at the absurdly high price I did. Thanks guys! And by the way Rob, SCO's legal team has admitted in several briefs that they currently have NO EVIDENCE to back their claims, and need access to the entire AIX/Dynix source tree if they are ever to uncover any. Apparently you are easy to convince. Say, I have this terrific MLM opportunity..
Readers should know that Microsoft is an important client of the Enderle group, Rob's consulting firm. . Rob's firm specializes in spinning stories that may seem unfavorable to his clients. It appears that is what is happening here. . But anyway, the Microsoft connection is not a matter of a single unnamed executive. . http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040311_8915_tc119.htm <quoting> Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar, says that senior executives at the software giant had telephoned him about two months before the investment. Would he be interested in investing in SCO, they asked? Goldfarb wouldn't identify the executives, but says neither Chairman William Gates nor CEO Steve Ballmer were among them. <end quote> . Rob has a lot more spinning to do on this issue. . At first both Microsoft and SCO insisted there was no connection to Baystar. . Then when the Anderer letter was released, SCO insisted that Anderer was misinformed and was corrected with the information that there was no Microsoft connection. . Now that there are more than one Microsoft executives who called Baystar and who according to Baystar had their own agenda, the story Rob either retells or made up is simply not enough. . http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/technology/22sco.html <quote> "It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda," Mr. Goldfarb said. <end quote>
I think there's quite a bit of spin in this opinion piece. What we actually know is that, amongst the small group of people that support SCO, one of the most important has serious reservations about the way they're proceeding. Remember: the actual ownership of this apparently intensely valuable IP is in question. SCO has almost no cash flow, and yet is now involved in litigation with some of the largest and richest companies on the planet. I think it's also been stated previously that RBC took their stake on behalf of a client seeking a hedge, which is not the same as RBC believing in SCOs case. Once you understand that the investors are just playing litigation lottery, it's only a handful of execs and their new best-friend Rob Enderle that seem to actually believe 100% in this litigation spree.
'This is just speculation -- we might never really know the actual sequence of events -- but it now seems clear that Microsoft itself was not directing either BayStar's or SCO's actions.' Really? Nothing 'seems clear' -- yet. However, one thing that is clear is that Rant for Rent Rob works for Microsoft. Need proof?: http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=110659,00.asp 'Editor's note: Microsoft Corp. is a client of the Enderle Group, the consulting firm headed by Rob Enderle.' Need I elaborate?
Rob, Based on your article, I could not tell what information you used to make the statement below (in particular, "...it now seems clear that..."). "This is just speculation -- we might never really know the actual sequence of events -- but it now seems clear that Microsoft itself was not directing either BayStar's or SCO's actions." Although I am not privy to any special details, from press accounts alone it seems that there is nothing conclusive one way or another on this issue (only, as you point out, speculation), and that it still remains to be proven, disproven, or left undecided. Perhaps the IBM subpoenas and the entire litigation discovery process will shed some more light on this, but otherwise I don't see how anyone can say that the matter is clear. Comments? MichaelB
You've made your position very clear over the past few months, but the reasons for this position have never been explained. . You claim SCO will win. Then you explain that claim by saying that they have a strong case. Then you'll back up that claim by saying that you've been in contact with SCO weekly and you've seen things that lead you to believe etc etc. . What about facts? When are you going to back-up your "opinion" with facts and points of law, and maybe even lines of code? I think that's what your argument, and SCO's as well is missing in order for the rest of the world to believe anything that comes out of the SCO camp anymore. . I could say that I've talked to IBM and Novell. And I've heard about their legal strategies and I've studied everything I could find. I have a lot of experience in cases like these and I had a chance to discuss it with some of my lawyer friends etc etc. Everything I've found out tells me that SCO is going to get thrown out of court before the first day of summer. . But the same as you, just cause I said it doesn't make it true. . And then again, to quote a TV celebrity, I don't like to substitute other people's judgement for my own, and when I compile everything I've found out from both sides...you're arguments dont hold water, dont stand up to reality and are not very impressive at all. . You say SCO will win. I say, nobody's holding their breath... good luck with that.
Loading ...
The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: Rob Enderle April 26, 2004 08:28 AMSCO has just over $60 million in resources to sustain it while it fights IBM in what clearly is one of the most volatile wars in the history of technology. What has been very interesting is that SCO publicly has been given almost no chance of winning, while privately the company has convinced several folks, including me, that it has a strong chance. One of the most interesting investors was BayStar Capital, which not only invested $20 million of its own money in the firm, but prevailed on the Royal Bank of Canada to kick in another $30 million.
.
I can't believe all of these doubters. Have they seen SCO evidence? No! Of course not! And even if they had, most couldn't really analyze the evidence the way a true analyst such as yourself could. And you have the support of other top analysts who have also seen the evidence, such as Laura DiDio. In addition, Microsoft recommended the investment to BayStar. With that kind of endorsement, I have shifted my life's savings to SCO stock. The current lack of confidence in SCO has allowed me to buy SCO stock at bargain prices with really cheap loan money. By next year, SCO will be sitting on top of a mountain of money, and I will be able to sell my stock and retire!
.
I must admit that I had my doubts in the beginning. I just didn't realize what a strong case SCO had, until I got the word from you and Laura. You two rock! Serves those commie Linux kooks right! Hopefully, we can save the software industry before they destroy it with their evil viral GPL. Maybe Microsoft can help our legislators to innovate some laws to stop Linux before it is too late. I sure hope so.
.
Anyway, I would like to thank you once again for your brilliant and insightful work. You and Laura are like two lighthouses in the darkness showing us the way with your billiant light!!!
.
Love Microsoft!!! They lead us to technical salvation!
-
So no there is no evidence that Microsoft even recommended SCO as an investment as a company let alone is directing things behind the scenes. All FUD. Nicely done though.
-
The paragraph that read (paraphrased)
-
"they will hide the essetial information from IBM during discovery and spring it during trial"
-
-
Please tell us again how much litigation experience you have. I'm one who is certainly impressed by how much you leanrned in your litigation experience.
-
-
Have you given SCOldera lessons in how to hide evidence during discovery and spring it on IBM during the trial?
-
Considering that you have so much litigation experience you should offer your assistance to SCOldera in that regard.
-
Suggesting the Royal Bank of Canada is "playing litigation lottery" is an amazing stretch.
SCO are PROVEN LIARS after the "SCO Forum". For a clear description of this go to http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html.
-
Why do you have such faith in PROVEN LIARS?
-
And you can't explain the endless delaying tactics of SCO in their litigation against IBM. I think IBM know a lot more about this case than you do, and if SCO had any reasonable evidence, IBM would have settled a long time ago.
-
IBM are willing to fight this case because they know they will win.
And by the way Rob, SCO's legal team has admitted in several briefs that they currently have NO EVIDENCE to back their claims, and need access to the entire AIX/Dynix source tree if they are ever to uncover any. Apparently you are easy to convince. Say, I have this terrific MLM opportunity..
.
Rob's firm specializes in spinning stories that may seem unfavorable to his clients. It appears that is what is happening here.
.
But anyway, the Microsoft connection is not a matter of a single unnamed executive.
.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040311_8915_tc119.htm
<quoting>
Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar, says that senior executives at the software giant had telephoned him about two months before the investment. Would he be interested in investing in SCO, they asked? Goldfarb wouldn't identify the executives, but says neither Chairman William Gates nor CEO Steve Ballmer were among them.
<end quote>
.
Rob has a lot more spinning to do on this issue.
.
At first both Microsoft and SCO insisted there was no connection to Baystar.
.
Then when the Anderer letter was released, SCO insisted that Anderer was misinformed and was corrected with the information that there was no Microsoft connection.
.
Now that there are more than one Microsoft executives who called Baystar and who according to Baystar had their own agenda, the story Rob either retells or made up is simply not enough.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/technology/22sco.html
<quote>
"It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda," Mr. Goldfarb said.
<end quote>
What we actually know is that, amongst the small group of people that support SCO, one of the most important has serious reservations about the way they're proceeding.
Remember: the actual ownership of this apparently intensely valuable IP is in question.
SCO has almost no cash flow, and yet is now involved in litigation with some of the largest and richest companies on the planet.
I think it's also been stated previously that RBC took their stake on behalf of a client seeking a hedge, which is not the same as RBC believing in SCOs case.
Once you understand that the investors are just playing litigation lottery, it's only a handful of execs and their new best-friend Rob Enderle that seem to actually believe 100% in this litigation spree.
Really? Nothing 'seems clear' -- yet. However, one thing that is clear is that Rant for Rent Rob works for Microsoft. Need proof?:
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=110659,00.asp
'Editor's note: Microsoft Corp. is a client of the Enderle Group, the consulting firm headed by Rob Enderle.'
Need I elaborate?
Based on your article, I could not tell what information you used to make the statement below (in particular, "...it now seems clear that...").
"This is just speculation -- we might never really know the actual sequence of events -- but it now seems clear that Microsoft itself was not directing either BayStar's or SCO's actions."
Although I am not privy to any special details, from press accounts alone it seems that there is nothing conclusive one way or another on this issue (only, as you point out, speculation), and that it still remains to be proven, disproven, or left undecided. Perhaps the IBM subpoenas and the entire litigation discovery process will shed some more light on this, but otherwise I don't see how anyone can say that the matter is clear. Comments?
MichaelB
.
You claim SCO will win. Then you explain that claim by saying that they have a strong case. Then you'll back up that claim by saying that you've been in contact with SCO weekly and you've seen things that lead you to believe etc etc.
.
What about facts? When are you going to back-up your "opinion" with facts and points of law, and maybe even lines of code? I think that's what your argument, and SCO's as well is missing in order for the rest of the world to believe anything that comes out of the SCO camp anymore.
.
I could say that I've talked to IBM and Novell. And I've heard about their legal strategies and I've studied everything I could find. I have a lot of experience in cases like these and I had a chance to discuss it with some of my lawyer friends etc etc. Everything I've found out tells me that SCO is going to get thrown out of court before the first day of summer.
.
But the same as you, just cause I said it doesn't make it true.
.
And then again, to quote a TV celebrity, I don't like to substitute other people's judgement for my own, and when I compile everything I've found out from both sides...you're arguments dont hold water, dont stand up to reality and are not very impressive at all.
.
You say SCO will win. I say, nobody's holding their breath...
good luck with that.