SCO's Biggest Investor Admits It Loves IP Lawsuits 270
Roblimo writes "A Baystar Capital spokesperson has finally admitted, directly and on the record to NewsForge reporter Chris Preimesberger, that they believe SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits against Linux users and vendors. 'We're looking for the best return we can, and we think the focus should be on IP licensing (and enforcement),' said BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath."
Behind every bad company... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:5, Insightful)
So really Baystar never said they love IP lawsuits. They said they want to make money off of IP. I'm sure that they would much rather just collect license fees than have to sue, contrary to what the title and Roblimo's description imply.
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:5, Insightful)
- no patents
- no copyright claims on Linux (the kernel has been certified free of copyright infringement, SCO have failed to show even a single line of copied code, despite being ordered twice to do so by the court)
- no trade secrets
- no trademark issues with Linux
So what's left for SCO ? Another EV1 stooge ? That should get them another 20K or so. Hardly a good investment considering the millions they are burning on legal fees.
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the courts are known to be a version of vegas (where the amount of cash you can burn can stack the deck for or against you) this has (from an investors point of view) some merit.
The best indicator of how many investors believe that SCO has a chance is it's stock price.
Meanwhile the evil empire sits back and laughs, whatever the outcome for sco, win or lose they will win.
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO with about 70-80 million in the bank and a negative cash flow
or
IBM that probably has at least 10 to 20 times that and a positive cash flow?
Seems pretty obvious.
BayStar's Deathstar (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite. My assessment is that they never expected Darl to go hog wild on the PR front, nor did they expect him to be "bright" enough (in his own parasitic, pathetic way) to realize he was being set up to drive SCO into the ground.
Looking at BayStar's backers, the initial move against OSS was tremendously clever and dangerous. By funding small battles in minor lands, the goal was to poison OSS. Apply a stigma to it, make it look shady, risky and dangerous and corporate America will stick with the institutions of Microsoft, Solaris, Oracle, SCO, etc. (this theory helps explain why Oracle and Sun have appearances of being on the "wrong" side of OSS and may be receiving subpoenas in the matter - Oracle already has).
Many of Groklaw's commentators have difficulty understanding why SCO, BayStar, Boies & crew, Sontag, and many other intelligent (ethics aside) people bet on such a ludicrous case. Sontag's recent copyright to patent morphing attempts, for instance, is terribly weak and Sontag clearly must be aware of it. But this case wasn't initially propped up to be the primary battleground between the proprietary software world and OSS. It was intended to be a lengthly skirmish between a pump & dump effort from a long-dead UNIX vendor and OSS.
What went wrong? They hired the right white-shoe legal firm for the job (Boies), greased the pols (Hatch) and got the right court. What they didn't expect is an effective, organized opposition (e.g. Groklaw) and more so, did not count on losing the traderag spin (you can bet there's been some money spent to protect that message, but you can't stop them from dropping the paid spin once the issue goes mainstream, although there still is the occasional hack for hire out there). Oddly enough, though, the greatest mistake was trusting Darl and Chris to remain stupid and unaware that they were being set up to fail. Darl in particular believed the lies and the thought that he could actually own the empire that controlled what is presently OSS got him. Imagine the power and wealth from being the CEO to own Linux? They shouldn't have underestimated Darl's ability to self-delude, let alone his greed and power drive. The created their own monster and can't control him (though BayStar is now trying to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle). BayStar has a slight problem in this move, though, as it won't immediately kill Darl and instead, may make him feel even more attacked. Having dealt with pump & dump schemers like Darl before, the last thing you want to do is corner him. BayStar should have moved to redirect (e.g. offer another $20 mil or so and slow things down and move the matter off of the front pages of the tech press. Either that, or promote Darl to some "critical" to allow him to focus on building the future super Linux company and "not be distracted from the day to day of nasty legal stuff" - anything to get him out of SCOg).
This truly is terrible news for the anti-OSS coalition. Fighting the main battle on this issue is a historic error. Should Linux be permitted to be decreed "legitimate and safe" through this process, you can expect Microsoft to lose its OS business within 5-10 years (being perhaps relegated to an office suite vendor), Sun left to push high-end AMD or Intel boxes, and Oracle simply to perish (hey Larry, can you say "Post-gres-ql?" I didn't think you could!).
IBM's motivation is tremendously historical. They got screwed by the OS play with Gates the first time around and are salivating at a royalty-free OS that frees them from bundling leverage and other annoyances, let alone the license expense. Although they derive their own benefit, kudos to IBM for escalating the skirmish into an all-out war.
*scoove*
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:3, Insightful)
They have a _huge_ dispute with IBM over just that, and contrary to
what people think it is about a WHOLE lot more than just copying UNIX code to Linux.
No, actually, it's not.
They (SCO) want Linux users to pay them for "Linux licenses". For this to be valid, their copyrighted code has to be in Linux. It's not.
Now, if they have some type of valid contractual claim with IBM, that's nice; I really don't care. I'm not a party to that contract, and neither is any other Linux user,
Slashdot does the same thing as SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
We rely on a combination of copyright, trademark and trade-secret laws, employee and third-party nondisclosure agreements, and other arrangements to protect our proprietary rights.
Re:Slashdot does the same thing as SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
What you don't see is VA Linux suing people or companies while refusing to show what they are suing over. It's a *business* afterall. Businesses can be good citizens, or bad bullies (and shades in between). Just because VA Linux uses NDAs (standard in the industry), copyright and patents (they sell stuff afterall) and trade-secrets (to protect what they are working on) does not mean they are SCO, or even in their ball park. The develop and deliver more products than lawsuits.
Heck, I'm using
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that, though legal and perfectly reasonable sounding, is the root of the problem. Companies that did not invent anything and have no intent of producing a useful product are gobbling up patent slips and collecting license fees or firing of C&D's. It is certainly an abuse of the intent, if not the letter of IP law.
If patent reform isn't possible now, at least investors and other companies should blacklist these bully corporations.
Unisys, SCO, Forgent, Rambus... interesting how the ones most famous for this garbage produce nothing particularly useful. Is this the type of thing the founding fathers were trying to encourage when they set up patents in the first place?
Cheers.
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure this is such a good idea. A world in which patents have value but are not transferrable would strongly penalize hobbyists and small inventors. These people may patent a good idea, and either not recognize its importance or not be willing to dedicate their life to running a business, so the idea would never make it to market.
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more important is the fact that patents are being granted for trivial things undeserving of a patent. As example: anything software related. Software is an evolutionary technology -- all improvements to the state of the art are, by themselves, merely logical next steps and not true innovation. Implementation is where the software industry innovates, and that is covered by copyright. The reasons why patents should not be granted for software are much the same reasons why patents are not allowed for mathematics or styles of literature, art, and music.
Deception? (Score:5, Insightful)
From McGrath:
I think that statement (esp. adding "enforcement" to it) as well as this summary of the NY Times article by the author caused the OP to make the allegations.
According to those two statements, one could conclude that legal action is all Baystar is looking for.
Re:Behind every bad company... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are Saying - we may or may not have some IP which may or may not be included in the car you drive, the air you breathe, and weed you smoke.
We have no intention of intentifying the IP - but we have huge plans on suing everything that moves and see how many suckers we can shake out of the sucker tree.
The MO seems to be a play on the empirical fact that settling is often cheaper than fighting and winning.
This is predictable.
The slogan - we do not negotiate with terrorists - means sure it ALWAYS easiest to negotiate - but these things build on themselves.
The end game of capitulation means leveraging the benefits of capitulation.
AIK
Maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)
Grrr.... (Score:3, Funny)
Grrr!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
[burn karma burn]
Re:Maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)
On behalf of SCO, I must ask to cease and desist with your bridge selling business. SCO has both patented and copyrighted all bridges and is the well known originator of bridges, fountain of youths, and unicorns.
If you do not cease, SCO will be forced to take legal action againt you. To avoid all legal entanglements, you may license bridge selling from us for the low price of $699.
Sincerely,
David Boies
Re:Maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear David Boies
On Behalf of SCO, I must ask you to cease and desist with your attempts to cease and desist others.
Your cease and desist letters appear to have remarkable simularties with the proprietry and copyrighted cease and desist letters we produce.
We are willing to reveal exact line numbers and phrases in common to any interested third parties under the terms of an NDA.
If you do not cease, SCO will be forced to take legal action against you. To avoid all legal entanglements you may license our IP at a low price of $699 per single page cease and desist, or $1400 for double paged letters.
Sincerly,
Steve Kemp
Great Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
Best plan evar!
Dark Side.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dark Side.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dark Side.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dark Side.. (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting CNN article as well (Score:5, Informative)
Going for a new record? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting CNN article as well (Score:5, Informative)
There is a key aspect of this Slashdot story... BayStar has asked for its money back unless SCO fixes a few things, including its management. That's they key here I think, when BayStar gets nervous with how SCO is proceeding and they want things to change or else.
Here's hoping Darl gets ousted.
Re:Interesting CNN article as well (Score:2, Interesting)
>Here's hoping Darl gets ousted.
Are you mad?! Whatever for?!
You're a SCO investor or what?
Re:Interesting CNN article as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting CNN article as well -rejected yest. (Score:2)
SCO Investor wants its money back - Friday April 23, @03:14PM - Rejected
Basically, they already asked for their money back. But it seems they will agree to huge changes where SCO goes for more litigation cash.
The parent should be modded up - the CNN/AP story is informative.
Darl Ousting (Score:3, Funny)
Sue.
They have a good point (Score:2)
Re:Interesting CNN article as well (Score:5, Funny)
I personally find their situation halarious (read: shit out of luck), and very fitting for companies wishing to profit from frivilous lawsuits.
Re:Interesting CNN article as well (Score:2)
They aren't being blunt in any way that Darl McBride hasn't been blut before. BayStar probably expects that the market takes SCO's intellectual property claims more seriously, thereby boosting the value of their investment. Remember, they don't care about being liked, they care about money.
Whether BayStar knows how unfounded SCO's IP claims actually are and they are just using it, or whether they actually think that SC
Business is All About Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business is All About Money (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't happen any more once the company is public, but that's another story.
Re:Business is All About Money (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Business is All About Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's face it, life is about pleasure. If some individual believes in "doing no evil", it's simply because, in the opinion of the individual's intellect, "doing no evil" is a good way to make pleasure. On the long term, pissing everybody off is probably not a viable pleasure strategy.
Seems like a good summary to me
See also. (Score:5, Insightful)
Investor softens stand on SCO [sltrib.com]
Interpretation: BayStar wants McDarling gone because his big mouth is sinking the ship.
Re:See also. (Score:4, Interesting)
When the slashdot crowd are actually starting to like Darl for sinking the ship, THEN its a good idea to get rid of him.
Linux supporters love McBride! (Score:5, Interesting)
>When the slashdot crowd are actually starting to like Darl for sinking the ship, THEN its a good idea to get rid of him.
Not only is McBride our top pick for steering SCO into the ground (taking the investors with him) by using his large mouth to talk about "millions of lines of literal copying" that they have again failed to identify -- thereby again failing to comply to the court order to be specific (the next hearing will be very interesting. Will IBM finally ask for sanctions, or are they just too nice for that? :-) -- but he's also raiding the SCO coffers all by himself, lifting $968,000 out of the company last year! Almost a million dollars in salary+bonus from a business that's a COMPLETE FAILURE! Well, I guess it's not a complete failure if you count the core business as being 'stock scams', but let's just pretend they're a litigation company instead.
McBride, we're on your side! Don't step down now -- You've got to ride this out (...and into that orange jumpsuit...).
Re:Linux supporters love McBride! (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that McBride's screwups have helped things immensely.
Re:Linux supporters love McBride! (Score:2)
Come on he is clearly nuts.
On the brighter side odds are pretty good he will never work again after this.
Right now the investment group are going to have to answer for the money the blew on this nut case. So they are in deep as well
In late breaking news Girl Scouts a threat to malls http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,16
Re:See also. (Score:2, Interesting)
-B
Re:See also. (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree. If you read the articles where BayStar speak out, you'll see that they're still believers -- unless they're lying about being believers for some reason, but that's just a little too tinfoil-hatty for me this time.
No, I actually think they're mad because McBride spends all his time travelling the world, with his big mouth, a big mouth that's hurting their chances (as it were) in court, and also all this talk about rebuilding the "core UNIX business".. BayStar wants none of that crap (and neithe
Re:See also. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are an investment fund.
They can't exactly say: "Uhh . . . . We screwed up. SCOX is a waste of money. They don't have anything, and they have never had anything."
They invest with OPM (other people's money) after all.
Instead, in a fairly civilized and classy fashion, Baystar says:
"SCOX has violated our agreement. We don't think that SCOX is approaching this case in the correct fashion. Of course, if they had done what we had told them to, they would be wildly succesful, but since they haven't we want our money back, and then we should go our seperate ways. Unless, of course, they make these [impossible] changes, after all, we aren't bad guys"
Re:See also. (Score:2)
<tinfoil^>
This is a good way for MS to attempt to dis-associate themselves from this mess by having BayStar *appear* to *only* be in it for IP reasons. Baystar could be left to hang down the road also.
</tinfoil^>
Re:Grammar nazi (Score:2, Informative)
The use of collective nouns as singular or plural depends on the country, just like spelling. In British english collective nouns are often considered plural, referring to the plurality of employees represented by BayStar.
Re:From the land of incorrect spellings. (Score:2)
RBE (Score:5, Informative)
How can Baystar be the "biggest investor" ?
Re:RBE (Score:2)
Same? (Score:2)
Re:Same? (Score:5, Informative)
PS. As for the pan handler a good location can make them $30+ an hour on a good day here in Montreal And that's tax free. Don't feel sorry for his/her lack of income.. feel sorry about whatever addiction it's all blown on.
Kingston, ON (Score:2)
Re:Kingston, ON (Score:2)
In the summer the tourist industry is focused around Princess and the downtown area, and I gather it's possible to do fairly well pan-handling, or playing music on the street. It is non-taxable income, so $5/hr is really equivalent to $8/hr working, and I'd think that'd be a low ballpark figure for the summer (albeit perhaps a bit high for
Fellow Kingstonian (Score:2)
I would have to agree. It's really sad.
> not totally unrelated to the centralization of federal prisons in the area
My experience is that most ex-cons flee the city after being released, because they don't wish to stick around. I guess some stay, but for the most part they depart.
> lack of sustainable industry.
This is likely the real problem. Kingston's ecconomy is terrible, due mostly to the corruption of city officials, from wha
going down (Score:3, Informative)
Unbelievable! (Score:5, Insightful)
This in itself isn't really that horrible, because they're just updating their business model to profit off of all the supposed stealing thats been going on. That is, if they could somehow get licensing fees from everyone running linux, that'd be a viable business.
Of course, because it's SCO, no one really stole anything (as far as we can tell). And that's what makes them evil: making false accusations about infringement to drive stock price up, not pursuing what is rightfully theirs under the law.
The reaction shouldn't be "omg! software company thinks their IP is valuable!" it should be "omg! software company is making outrageous claims about what they own!"
Re:Unbelievable! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable! (Score:2)
*cough*Forgent [slashdot.org]*cough*
Seriously, getting your income solely from licensing and suing the dickens out of others is all that's left once lack of innovation and/or vendor-lock take hold. It puts real progress squarely in the court of GPL. Just MHO as a user.
the biggest con SCO pulled off so far... (Score:5, Interesting)
one hopes that when the countersuits start flying that baystar is named as a defendant right under sco.
eric
Re:the biggest con SCO pulled off so far... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you expect this after seeing investors pour money into dot.coms without checking them out just a few years ago? Many investors will throw money at whwtever they think the latest "Hot Thing" (TM) is without a second thought, and IP lawsiuts seem to be the latest "Hot Thing" (TM).
Re:the biggest con SCO pulled off so far... (Score:2)
Yes I know EV1 gained customers that quarter, then again their competitors gained even more, and EV1 had just opened a new win2k3 datacenter.
Ha (Score:2)
This should likely only say vendors. Vendors using Linux are ripe for the picking, right Darl? Ah, but potential is never quite the same as reality, and that's the problem with SCO's claims... they are rooted in a fantasy.
My God! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My God! (Score:2)
Simple economics (Score:2, Insightful)
The flip side to this coin is that SCO might actually think that they have one friend in this fight, when actually, they trying to cover their own ass[ets]
Maybe if SCO owned something to enforce (Score:5, Insightful)
And it doesn't even matter if they DO own ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose there is a chance that IBM could be found liable for breaking some contract provision they had with SCO over UNIX code. Perhaps some of that code may have even found its way illegally into Linux (although absolutely zero proof has been presented as yet).
The bottom line is that SCO will never see Linux users pay licensing fees to them for their IP because the WHOLE POINT of free software that the code is free! If any co
You're fired! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like there is somebody in senior managment who is just not suing fast enough or well enough to suit Baystar Capital. It is an odd state of affairs when a company, other than a law firm's, most important product is law suits. That's messed up, dudes. :P
Next in Business News (Score:2)
Duh.
Its all SCO has. The lawsuits are all they have left.
+
Baystar? (Score:2)
New line of business (Score:3, Funny)
And that, in a nutshell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And that, in a nutshell... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism and corporations (Score:2)
Corporations are the bedrock of capitalism. But there's no reason they are necessary in a fre
Sounds like gambling to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that they've placed their bet, they should lose it. Nobody places a bet on a horse and then asks for their money back halfway through the race just because the horse is lame and the jockey is, well, Daryl McBride
-EK
Disclaimer - I don't gamble, nor do I promote gambling
No shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
Any mistake (Score:2, Interesting)
Hedge funds are in the business of making money, and I would bet the Baystar has same amount of money invested in Open Source companies.
Hedge Fund don't lose money, they just make less.
This isn't such a strange idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Option 2 is expensive and risky by comparison. Sure, you want to develop new products, but if you are not milking what you can out of the existing ones, then there is no point in developing new ones! Management is being (criminally) negligent if it doesn't pursue option 1. LOTS of companies make money this way by licensing technology. If SCO does have a basis (or management believes it has a basis) for these claims, then management has an obligation to pursue this course.
The really interesting points here, however, are:
Always with the Doom & Gloom, he is... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Mutual funds and VC groups begin to seek out luctrative litigation opportunities.
2. People begin to invest in these groups, because of the high rate of return. Skilled lawyers scour the land for untapped "violations" or negligence.
3. The well begins to dry up. Investors need to keep the cash flowing in. but the only targets left don't carry enough cash to make them good targets. So they lobby the Federal Government to mandate the remaining targets to carry insurance.
4. The risk is spread out, and we all pay more to keep BayStar's numbers in the black... with no social benefit whatsoever.
5. Repeat, industry by industry.
Head I win, tails you lose (Score:4, Funny)
But if you buy a linux licence like EV1 did, you get a subpoena by IBM, and end up in a lawsuit.
MORAL: Stay away from the Litigous Bastards [sco.com]
OK, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost every legal analyst says SCO chances to win are slim to none, yet for some reason, people are still investing in this stock. They'd have equal risk but higher payoff potential if they'd sink their money into the Powerball lottery.
Not enough focus on lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Drop the current charges against IBM.
b) Make some new and even more vague charges.
c) Raise lawsuit to 10 billion dollars.
While SCO may be able to scare away people from switching to Linux, with all the defense funds that have been popping up, I strongly doubt they'll be able to scare any current users into licencing their IP. Baystar will never see any money from it.
The only one laughing all the way to the bank is Microsoft. I'm sure they love this spin from Baystar "This Linux lawsuit is what has value! Screw the rest, this is the goldmine" when in fact, it's a bloody weak card against a giant in IP. The remaining business is simply even worse.
Kjella
What's that have to do with the case? (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if they'll let Darl share cells with Martha Stewart?
Great business plan (Score:2)
Time fixes everything.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Recommendation to sell.. anonymously? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder why they want to be anonymous? The recommendation. [nasdaq.com]
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
It can only hurt the overall economy so i dont understand how it has survived as a system.
It would appear you are mistaken . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
With all due respect,WTF are you talking about? What does it mean to "sue for justice?" In modern society, we have two forms of litigation, criminal and civil. In criminal litigation, society sues through its government to seek remedies against those who commit a crime. Those remedies take the form of incarceration and fines. In civil litigation, individuals sue for remedies due to economic harms caused by the conduct of another. Remedies are either legal (that is, money damages), or equitable (that is, an injunction from further conduct). The later is much rarer, mostly because litigation is too expensive to justify the cost of seeking only an injunction.
In that sense, why are you whining about people suing for money? That is, in fact, the ONLY reason to sue -- it is the only remedy the court has to give at the end of the day. Nothing else would make any economic sense.
It can only hurt the overall economy so i dont understand how it has survived as a system.
You make the strongest argument against your hypothesis with this conclusion. As you have observed, civil litigation has survived as a practice in every modern society on Earth today. People continue to invest in litigation, both asserting and defending, because it serves an economic purpose to do so.
It does not hurt the overall economy therefore, which is why it has survived as a system.
The bottom line, really, is to compare the presence of civil litigation
Just What Does SCO "Own"? (Score:5, Insightful)
They do not own the copyrights to the Unix source code, as that was explicitly exempted in the agreement between Novel and old-SCO. They do not own the specifications for Unix, which is now a public standard known as Posix. They do not even own the Unix trademark, which is owned by the Open Group.
It seems to me that all they really own is the abililty to license the Unix code that belongs to Novell, which is why they have to pay Novell a portition of the licensing fees they collect. The fact that Novell has the ability to override licensing decisions made by SCO (such as trying to void IBM's license in regards to AIX) indicates to me who is really in charge.
Personally, I hope Baystar suffers a huge loss for their decision to back such a stupid lawsuit.
Time for a new protocol... (Score:4, Funny)
Baumi
Hah (Score:3, Interesting)
Only problem is that it will still be a year or so before we realize just how great of a service he is/was to us.
BayStar boycott list (Score:3, Informative)
What baystar ought to do is... (Score:3)
And so should each of their executives separately or all together.
People who just want to rub strangers together in the hopes that money will fall out are the kinds of parasties on humantiy that really need to exit the gene-pool.
Those who are proud of their position and goals in this respect need to willfully, and of their own violation, seek and recover the clearly present and valuable "gold like substance that marketers insist will be good for the economy" from within the heart of any really nice hot flame. They do, after all, seem to so enjoy the heat and entropy they try to extract from anything useful that comes near them.
They should do this dressed only in a festive goat skin, or perhaps the flesh of their offspring, equipped with only a cheap aluminium spoon.
First one out with a full jar of plasma gets an executive bonus, a writeup in CIO magazine, and a seat on a board of directors...
Den of Lawyers? (Score:2)
It's tempting to say:
Those rich scummy lawyers are not distributed evenly. A disproportionate number of them live in America, the Land of Litigation.
However, according to this article [august1.com], it's just not true.
-kgj
No, that's just America. (Score:3, Informative)
I think Britain is second with somewhere around 90 per 100,000.
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Re:a question for BayStar (Score:5, Insightful)
While Darl and friends really *aren't* the most ept at IP litigation (view the numerous mistakes made), and both Darl and Baystar pretty well qualify as scum (trying to push a set of claims that everyone involved pretty clearly knows is bogus, and en route damaging a project that tens of thousands of very bright people have built with their volunteer time), I doubt that Baystar is *really* thinking that they have a chance if senior management is switched at SCO.
It's not that uncommon to throw the CEO to the wolves (by which I mean "let go with a golden parachute to seek employment elsewhere") when things go sour, whether it's his fault or not.
The claim "focus less on UNIX and more on litigation" is, from what I know, pretty silly. SCO has been doing jack for their UNIX properties already -- Baystar may just be putting up a front of "we knew the right thing to do, SCO was a good investment, but their management screwed it up".
Oh, and as for people who say "they're only in it for the money" WRT Darl and Baystar -- yeah, no kidding. We formed a social and legal system that made money the sole master, where corporate executives are responsible only to shareholders, and only to increasing stock value. There is no provision in our legal system for, say, gross unethical action. Darl and all the MBAs and lawyers involved are doing *exactly* what we've chosen to have society reward them for. It's hard to complain when they do exactly that. If we want them to do something else, we need to make provision for that in law.
Very much so. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Dump your products, because you are no good at, and have no special expertise in selling them. Let others do that, while collecting license revenues for their use of the intellectual property that you acquired, albeit from others.