Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
SCO has just over US$60 million in resources to sustain the company while they fight 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 they have a strong chance. One of the most interesting investors was BayStar Capital, who not only invested $20 million of their own money in the firm, but prevailed on the Royal Bank of Canada to kick in another $30 million.
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: go-microsoft 2004-04-28 11:27:32 In reply to: Rob Enderle
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!
.
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!
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: btobin 2004-05-04 04:26:04 In reply to: go-microsoft
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..
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..
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: RobEnderle 2004-04-28 22:04:00 In reply to: go-microsoft
Actually no one has seen the necessary evidence yet, it still needs to come out of discovery. What has been presented is enough to get the process started but it may not be enough to actually get into court let alone win. I, and others, believe the evidence exists but a belief is not a fact and it would be naïve to assume that a case can be tried in pre-trial. If that were true there would be no need for courts. (Kind of a nice thought, but not realistic).
-
As you probably know Laura is an ex-investigative reporter for CNN and rather unique in our industry. She was the first to suggest that the code SCO had may not actually belong to SCO but that was lost in the FUD folks tossed her way.
-
SCO needs to focus on winning the case, there is too much side activity going on for my comfort. The reward is potentially very large but the risk is fluid and that remains a problem.
-
Even if Microsoft recommended the investment in SCO to BayStar there is no connection between that recommendation and the actual investment. BayStar still did the research and, apparently, knew the recommendation came with an agenda. It was their money, not Microsoft’s and they had to cover their own hind quarters. The FUD on this is not only amazing it isn’t even very good. Some of the OSS folks must be incredibly gullible.
-
The Linux folks aren’t commies and the GPL isn’t evil. Some of the Linux folks behave badly and the GPL isn’t tested but evil, probably not. I think we have enough government involvement already; the DMCA was more involvement than I ever want to see again.
-
Microsoft is a good company, but any company needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They see the world as they would like it to be and that isn’t always, in fact it often isn’t at all, the way that is best for us.
-
Things have a tendency to change, right now Microsoft is the evil empire, before them it was IBM, before them it was AT&T, before them it was Standard Oil and I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
-
What is interesting is this column was about BayStar’s motivations and actions, it had very little to do with Linux or SCO outside of that, it is almost as if most of the folks posting didn’t actually read the column. Strangely enough, this is not only not a surprise; it is far from the first time.
-
As you probably know Laura is an ex-investigative reporter for CNN and rather unique in our industry. She was the first to suggest that the code SCO had may not actually belong to SCO but that was lost in the FUD folks tossed her way.
-
SCO needs to focus on winning the case, there is too much side activity going on for my comfort. The reward is potentially very large but the risk is fluid and that remains a problem.
-
Even if Microsoft recommended the investment in SCO to BayStar there is no connection between that recommendation and the actual investment. BayStar still did the research and, apparently, knew the recommendation came with an agenda. It was their money, not Microsoft’s and they had to cover their own hind quarters. The FUD on this is not only amazing it isn’t even very good. Some of the OSS folks must be incredibly gullible.
-
The Linux folks aren’t commies and the GPL isn’t evil. Some of the Linux folks behave badly and the GPL isn’t tested but evil, probably not. I think we have enough government involvement already; the DMCA was more involvement than I ever want to see again.
-
Microsoft is a good company, but any company needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They see the world as they would like it to be and that isn’t always, in fact it often isn’t at all, the way that is best for us.
-
Things have a tendency to change, right now Microsoft is the evil empire, before them it was IBM, before them it was AT&T, before them it was Standard Oil and I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
-
What is interesting is this column was about BayStar’s motivations and actions, it had very little to do with Linux or SCO outside of that, it is almost as if most of the folks posting didn’t actually read the column. Strangely enough, this is not only not a surprise; it is far from the first time.
Simply put - the Microsoft story does not hold up.
Posted by: linuxra 2004-04-27 01:36:37 In reply to: Rob Enderle
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>
.
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>
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: WindowsUser 2004-04-26 23:41:01 In reply to: Rob Enderle
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.
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.
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: RobEnderle 2004-04-28 10:59:41 In reply to: WindowsUser
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.
-
Suggesting the Royal Bank of Canada is "playing litigation lottery" is an amazing stretch.
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: Tim Ransom 2004-04-26 19:31:39 In reply to: Rob Enderle
'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?
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?
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: RobEnderle 2004-04-28 10:52:21 In reply to: Tim Ransom
I think if you are going to toss around FUD you should elaborate. This suggests that the only honest analyst is one that doesn't have any clients.
-
For FUD this is nicely done, it makes the implication but doesn't make any statements I could disprove.
-
I learned a long time ago there is no money in selling opinion. You simply lose credibility with your clients and they move to someone else. On the other hand you can take opinions your clients disagree with, and as long as you don't blind side them, you can do very well.
-
Most of these folks actually want diverse opinions and you actually, strangely enough, get more visibility in the firms if you say something negative than if you say something positive.
-
However, all that being said, the part that makes it clear that Microsoft is not directing this is there is no solid Microsoft connection and BayStar's recent actions appear to come from internal needs and Royal Bank pressures.
-
I have lots of clients, including Technewsworld, and I focus on the needs of each while I’m working for them. That means that when I’m working for IBM I’m not secretly working for HP, and when I’m working for Technewsworld I’m not secretly working for Microsoft.
-
Out of curiosity, who do you work for and does your opinion come directly from the company line?
-
For FUD this is nicely done, it makes the implication but doesn't make any statements I could disprove.
-
I learned a long time ago there is no money in selling opinion. You simply lose credibility with your clients and they move to someone else. On the other hand you can take opinions your clients disagree with, and as long as you don't blind side them, you can do very well.
-
Most of these folks actually want diverse opinions and you actually, strangely enough, get more visibility in the firms if you say something negative than if you say something positive.
-
However, all that being said, the part that makes it clear that Microsoft is not directing this is there is no solid Microsoft connection and BayStar's recent actions appear to come from internal needs and Royal Bank pressures.
-
I have lots of clients, including Technewsworld, and I focus on the needs of each while I’m working for them. That means that when I’m working for IBM I’m not secretly working for HP, and when I’m working for Technewsworld I’m not secretly working for Microsoft.
-
Out of curiosity, who do you work for and does your opinion come directly from the company line?
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: Tim Ransom 2004-05-01 06:31:39 In reply to: RobEnderle
First of all, thanks for responding to my post. I didn't think you would, so I just noticed.
'I think if you are going to toss around FUD you should elaborate. This suggests that the only honest analyst is one that doesn't have any clients.'
Analysis does require honesty - depending of course on what you mean by analysis. 'Analysis' can also be used to describe opinion or viewpoint pieces, so a movie review could be referred to as analysis.
I won't beat around the bush - I don't believe that your work for MS is analysis in the sense that you are asked to analyze their product and return an unbiased assessment. Rather, I believe it is PR in the form of journalism, which is a standard facet of PR initiatives (For those that doubt this type of thing exists, I implore you to read www.prwatch.org for the edifying details).
Part of the reason for this is that you offer such services on your website (www.enderlegroup.com). I am curious which of your services MS is buying and what you do in the course of such service. Another part of the reason can be gleaned by reading your many opinion pieces concerning Linux and open source, which I frankly often find long on rhetoric and short on facts. I believe that your motive for writing those pieces is that you were paid to do so as part of a marketing/PR initiative not unlike so many others employing the same tactics. You have stated that the SCO/IBM case (and subsequently the other four cases) is being tried in the media. I believe that you are in the trenches activley working on behalf of what could be described as the anti-Linux/OSS camp.
'For FUD this is nicely done, it makes the implication but doesn't make any statements I could disprove.'
Thanks - I'll admit that I am sowing FUD here. In fact, I am merely using the same tactics you yourself have used and continue to. Here is a quote I found particularly telling in a recent piece where you seek to justify your sweeping ad hominem attacks:
'Now that means that I can’t really trust anything that comes out of sites like Groklaw because, if you believe the community is lying then a community site like Groklaw is just a home for bad information.'
Firstly, you insist on perpetuating the myth that there is some 'groupthink' at play in this imaginary 'community', thus allowing you to summarily dismiss a group that ranges from professors of law to any whacko who wants to post. Secondly, Groklaw is primarily the place to go to read court transcripts and the text of motions (no other site comes close), so if you find the actual court documents and transcripts to be 'bad information', that might explain how uninformed you seem to be. If you read Groklaw, then perhaps you could leave behind disingenuous rhetoric like the above quoted to the likes of Ed Anger.
'I learned a long time ago there is no money in selling opinion. You simply lose credibility with your clients and they move to someone else. On the other hand you can take opinions your clients disagree with, and as long as you don't blind side them, you can do very well.'
There is obviously money in selling opinion. This article is nothing but opinion. Movie analys- er reviewers sell opinion. PR flacks sell opinion. In fact, even an honest critical analysis is an opinion, so your statement defeats itself.
'Most of these folks actually want diverse opinions and you actually, strangely enough, get more visibility in the firms if you say something negative than if you say something positive.'
This statement further erodes the previous one.
'However, all that being said, the part that makes it clear that Microsoft is not directing this is there is no solid Microsoft connection and BayStar's recent actions appear to come from internal needs and Royal Bank pressures.'
Now this is skillful. I agree that Baystar's recent actions were (likely) not directed from MS. However, the original circle between SCO, S2, Baystar and MS has been established. The on his way out mergers guy story doesn't exonerate anyone, no matter how reasonably you can embellish it with whimsical notions.
'I have lots of clients, including Technewsworld, and I focus on the needs of each while I’m working for them. That means that when I’m working for IBM I’m not secretly working for HP, and when I’m working for Technewsworld I’m not secretly working for Microsoft.'
Actually, I find it telling that, in true PR form, you have no client list on your site. Also, it is standard practice to sell columns written for PR to news sites, thus honoring several clients at once while moving the agenda forward. This is why your editor put the notice I originally quoted at the beginning of your column. It is of course no secret to your editors.
'Out of curiosity, who do you work for and does your opinion come directly from the company line?'
I have been a freelancer for many years. I write software, I do animation (trad and digital), I write white papers, manuals, help systems, proposals, marketing copy and pretty well everything else. I have worked as an employee at a couple of medium sized firms where I was also asked for analysis, both as a consultant to clients and as a QA tester, so I have been the one to rain on the parade with honest appraisal. I will reiterate that I don't believe that that is the kind of analysis MS pays you for. As for the company line, I have been lucky enough to work for people who value honesty for the most part. I have walked away from unscrupulous people, although I must admit my decision wasn't purely ethical - I didn't want to be associated with them because I like to make a living and know that working for dishonest people could make me a professional pariah.
Thanks again for responding.
'I think if you are going to toss around FUD you should elaborate. This suggests that the only honest analyst is one that doesn't have any clients.'
Analysis does require honesty - depending of course on what you mean by analysis. 'Analysis' can also be used to describe opinion or viewpoint pieces, so a movie review could be referred to as analysis.
I won't beat around the bush - I don't believe that your work for MS is analysis in the sense that you are asked to analyze their product and return an unbiased assessment. Rather, I believe it is PR in the form of journalism, which is a standard facet of PR initiatives (For those that doubt this type of thing exists, I implore you to read www.prwatch.org for the edifying details).
Part of the reason for this is that you offer such services on your website (www.enderlegroup.com). I am curious which of your services MS is buying and what you do in the course of such service. Another part of the reason can be gleaned by reading your many opinion pieces concerning Linux and open source, which I frankly often find long on rhetoric and short on facts. I believe that your motive for writing those pieces is that you were paid to do so as part of a marketing/PR initiative not unlike so many others employing the same tactics. You have stated that the SCO/IBM case (and subsequently the other four cases) is being tried in the media. I believe that you are in the trenches activley working on behalf of what could be described as the anti-Linux/OSS camp.
'For FUD this is nicely done, it makes the implication but doesn't make any statements I could disprove.'
Thanks - I'll admit that I am sowing FUD here. In fact, I am merely using the same tactics you yourself have used and continue to. Here is a quote I found particularly telling in a recent piece where you seek to justify your sweeping ad hominem attacks:
'Now that means that I can’t really trust anything that comes out of sites like Groklaw because, if you believe the community is lying then a community site like Groklaw is just a home for bad information.'
Firstly, you insist on perpetuating the myth that there is some 'groupthink' at play in this imaginary 'community', thus allowing you to summarily dismiss a group that ranges from professors of law to any whacko who wants to post. Secondly, Groklaw is primarily the place to go to read court transcripts and the text of motions (no other site comes close), so if you find the actual court documents and transcripts to be 'bad information', that might explain how uninformed you seem to be. If you read Groklaw, then perhaps you could leave behind disingenuous rhetoric like the above quoted to the likes of Ed Anger.
'I learned a long time ago there is no money in selling opinion. You simply lose credibility with your clients and they move to someone else. On the other hand you can take opinions your clients disagree with, and as long as you don't blind side them, you can do very well.'
There is obviously money in selling opinion. This article is nothing but opinion. Movie analys- er reviewers sell opinion. PR flacks sell opinion. In fact, even an honest critical analysis is an opinion, so your statement defeats itself.
'Most of these folks actually want diverse opinions and you actually, strangely enough, get more visibility in the firms if you say something negative than if you say something positive.'
This statement further erodes the previous one.
'However, all that being said, the part that makes it clear that Microsoft is not directing this is there is no solid Microsoft connection and BayStar's recent actions appear to come from internal needs and Royal Bank pressures.'
Now this is skillful. I agree that Baystar's recent actions were (likely) not directed from MS. However, the original circle between SCO, S2, Baystar and MS has been established. The on his way out mergers guy story doesn't exonerate anyone, no matter how reasonably you can embellish it with whimsical notions.
'I have lots of clients, including Technewsworld, and I focus on the needs of each while I’m working for them. That means that when I’m working for IBM I’m not secretly working for HP, and when I’m working for Technewsworld I’m not secretly working for Microsoft.'
Actually, I find it telling that, in true PR form, you have no client list on your site. Also, it is standard practice to sell columns written for PR to news sites, thus honoring several clients at once while moving the agenda forward. This is why your editor put the notice I originally quoted at the beginning of your column. It is of course no secret to your editors.
'Out of curiosity, who do you work for and does your opinion come directly from the company line?'
I have been a freelancer for many years. I write software, I do animation (trad and digital), I write white papers, manuals, help systems, proposals, marketing copy and pretty well everything else. I have worked as an employee at a couple of medium sized firms where I was also asked for analysis, both as a consultant to clients and as a QA tester, so I have been the one to rain on the parade with honest appraisal. I will reiterate that I don't believe that that is the kind of analysis MS pays you for. As for the company line, I have been lucky enough to work for people who value honesty for the most part. I have walked away from unscrupulous people, although I must admit my decision wasn't purely ethical - I didn't want to be associated with them because I like to make a living and know that working for dishonest people could make me a professional pariah.
Thanks again for responding.
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: pp002345 2004-04-26 17:29:08 In reply to: Rob Enderle
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
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
Re: The Mystery of BayStar, Microsoft and SCO
Posted by: RobEnderle 2004-04-28 11:03:41 In reply to: pp002345
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.
-
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.
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.
.
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.
I have to start by again commenting that beaner is a derogatory name here in California and that I know this user doesn’t know that and doesn’t mean it in this way.
-
You are right I have built a belief that SCO has a good chance of winning over time and, frankly, don’t feel it is within my capability to convince a Linux advocate of this. You would have to go through the process as I did, and you would have to start out neutral as I did to get to where I am and that, at this point, is virtually impossible. But it is my belief and I am simply consistent in saying that. And, as a belief, it is based on information I believe exists but that doesn’t mean it does exist, and accept that I could be very wrong.
-
This position has been enhanced somewhat by looking at the folks that have done the due diligence reviews behind the SCO investments. But I only believe they can win at this point, not that they will win. This is clearly an issue for BayStar and the Royal Bank of Canada who are not currently comfortable with the odds and want changes made at SCO to increase them. But, I’ve known the Royal Bank in particular for some time (they were, and are a keystone IBM account) and for them to make this investment and take a position against IBM would have required an incredible amount of heavy lifting.
-
This was not intended to be another “SCO will win” piece. I’ve done far too many of those already. This was simply to look at the back story behind BayStar and showcase the real reason behind their moves and what the outcome is likely to be. (A more demure SCO). Though, given the power of these two investors, I doubt it will stop there.
-
I wouldn’t suggest you hold your breath, this is still around 18 months to trial and I’m becoming increasingly convinced that one way, or the other, IBM’s CEO is never, ever, going to be allowed to take the stand so this will probably never make trial. If SCO has enough to go to court by the end of discovery IBM will settle out, if they don’t, IBM’s motion for summary judgment will prevail and SCO will be done which is exactly why BayStar and Royal Bank are making their move, they want to insure the former and prevent the latter.
-
You are right I have built a belief that SCO has a good chance of winning over time and, frankly, don’t feel it is within my capability to convince a Linux advocate of this. You would have to go through the process as I did, and you would have to start out neutral as I did to get to where I am and that, at this point, is virtually impossible. But it is my belief and I am simply consistent in saying that. And, as a belief, it is based on information I believe exists but that doesn’t mean it does exist, and accept that I could be very wrong.
-
This position has been enhanced somewhat by looking at the folks that have done the due diligence reviews behind the SCO investments. But I only believe they can win at this point, not that they will win. This is clearly an issue for BayStar and the Royal Bank of Canada who are not currently comfortable with the odds and want changes made at SCO to increase them. But, I’ve known the Royal Bank in particular for some time (they were, and are a keystone IBM account) and for them to make this investment and take a position against IBM would have required an incredible amount of heavy lifting.
-
This was not intended to be another “SCO will win” piece. I’ve done far too many of those already. This was simply to look at the back story behind BayStar and showcase the real reason behind their moves and what the outcome is likely to be. (A more demure SCO). Though, given the power of these two investors, I doubt it will stop there.
-
I wouldn’t suggest you hold your breath, this is still around 18 months to trial and I’m becoming increasingly convinced that one way, or the other, IBM’s CEO is never, ever, going to be allowed to take the stand so this will probably never make trial. If SCO has enough to go to court by the end of discovery IBM will settle out, if they don’t, IBM’s motion for summary judgment will prevail and SCO will be done which is exactly why BayStar and Royal Bank are making their move, they want to insure the former and prevent the latter.
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.
-
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.
Our own Rob becomes a vogon poet
http://sydney.proximity.com.au/~brian/jwz/vogon.html
-
>>And, as a belief, it is based on information I believe exists but that doesn’t mean it does exist, and accept that I could be very wrong.
<<<
-
You remind me more and more of the Fredrick March character in "Inherit the Wind".
-
>>
don’t feel it is within my capability to convince a Linux advocate of this.
<<<
-
How about trying to convince the several independent attorneys who've taken a look at this and have come away convinced that SCOlodera has nothing? This includes several who have posted on Groklaw, Mark Radcliffe & a new attorney whose blong entry on SCOG was recently highlighted on Groklaw.
-
How about trying to convince SCOldera's PARTNER IN BUSINESS, HP?
-
How about trying to convince the 1500 companies that SCOldera threatened with lawsuits & SCOldera's own Nigerian scam letters, NONE of whom has paid SCOldera one red cent?
-
>>
don’t feel it is within my capability to convince a Linux advocate of this.
<<<
-
Or anyone else, Rob.
http://sydney.proximity.com.au/~brian/jwz/vogon.html
-
>>And, as a belief, it is based on information I believe exists but that doesn’t mean it does exist, and accept that I could be very wrong.
<<<
-
You remind me more and more of the Fredrick March character in "Inherit the Wind".
-
>>
don’t feel it is within my capability to convince a Linux advocate of this.
<<<
-
How about trying to convince the several independent attorneys who've taken a look at this and have come away convinced that SCOlodera has nothing? This includes several who have posted on Groklaw, Mark Radcliffe & a new attorney whose blong entry on SCOG was recently highlighted on Groklaw.
-
How about trying to convince SCOldera's PARTNER IN BUSINESS, HP?
-
How about trying to convince the 1500 companies that SCOldera threatened with lawsuits & SCOldera's own Nigerian scam letters, NONE of whom has paid SCOldera one red cent?
-
>>
don’t feel it is within my capability to convince a Linux advocate of this.
<<<
-
Or anyone else, Rob.
<<I have to start by again commenting that beaner is a derogatory name here in California and that I know this user doesn’t know that and doesn’t mean it in this way.>>
.
Thanks...
.
Thanks...
"And, as a belief, it is based on information I believe exists but that doesn’t mean it does exist, and accept that I could be very wrong."
Well there's some refreshing honesty!
The only problem Mr Enderle is that the evidence you have seen could very easily be completely bogus.
Don't you remember the SCO Forum incident? They used code that was taken from BSD Unix and tried to claim it was theirs! SCO don't even know what they hold the copyright to. SCO claim Linux developers don't respect copyright laws - SCO are pure hypocrits.
I think all the evidence you have seen is similar to the SCO Forum - sure it may be the same, but it was COPIED FROM A THIRD SOURCE. You apparently haven't considered this possibility.
SCO's endless delays in the IBM case also show that they have no real evidence. Can you explain why SCO is delaying their supposed $5 BILLION payout?
Well there's some refreshing honesty!
The only problem Mr Enderle is that the evidence you have seen could very easily be completely bogus.
Don't you remember the SCO Forum incident? They used code that was taken from BSD Unix and tried to claim it was theirs! SCO don't even know what they hold the copyright to. SCO claim Linux developers don't respect copyright laws - SCO are pure hypocrits.
I think all the evidence you have seen is similar to the SCO Forum - sure it may be the same, but it was COPIED FROM A THIRD SOURCE. You apparently haven't considered this possibility.
SCO's endless delays in the IBM case also show that they have no real evidence. Can you explain why SCO is delaying their supposed $5 BILLION payout?
Actually I have considered this and agree it is a huge exposure. We may need to be in the trial itself before this gets fully vetted. There are two huge hurdles that SCO needs to get over, ownership and IBM direct involvement. If they don't have both they may not actually make it to trial.
-
I don’t think SCO is lying however belief does not equal fact and the number of believers on either side doesn’t change this. But, you’ll get no argument from me on this exposure it is huge and the ownership part goes to the core of virtually every one of their actions.
-
I don’t think SCO is lying however belief does not equal fact and the number of believers on either side doesn’t change this. But, you’ll get no argument from me on this exposure it is huge and the ownership part goes to the core of virtually every one of their actions.
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.
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.
