Slashdot Mirror

Down 4% since the market opened this morning, half of that in the last 20 minutes.

NASDAQ: SCOX

1. Microsoft used to own up to 12.3% of SCO.

2. Microsoft sold all of its SCO stock on 27 January 2000.

3. Not that that matters because it's not SCO that's suing IBM, it's "The SCO Group", which is realy Caldera. Microsoft have never owned Caldera stock.

I have no confirmation that Microsoft is divested from Tarentella, other than a declaration from Microsoft of their INTENTIONS to divest. Erm, you believe face up from an intention stated by MS that they will do something, that they actually followed through and did it?

A little digging on Tarantella's web site and I find a pointer to all the SEC filings, including Microsoft's form 13G which says:

NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:

5. SOLE VOTING POWER: -0-
6. SHARED VOTING POWER: -0-
7. SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER: -0-
8. SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER: -0-

AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON:
9. None

CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (9) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
10. [ ]

PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (9)
11. 0.0%

Which I read to say that as of 27 Jan 2000 Microsoft owned 0 (zero) shares of SCO.

By the way, the SEC filing is here

The ideal user for Netflix is someone who, like me, would rent more if I didn't have to worry about late fees. In fact, when I factor in my typical late fee rate, I only need to rent 3 movies from Netflix to break even on my $20 monthly membership fee.

You can call me lazy or whatever about not getting the movies back on time, and you might have a point ;). But, in the end, Netflix offers me a value in that I get flexibility in my life. For example, I can decide to watch a movie for 30 minutes each night before I go to bed (e.g. HBO TV series). I can just hang on to a DVD for a week until I get a chance to see it.

In other words, I use Netflix for the same reason I own a Tivo. It's about my time and my schedule, not about due dates and penalties. I have enough of that at work... why bring it home.

Also, there are NO late fees. none. ever. That means that as long as I get around 3-5 rentals a month, I'm happy. It's cheaper than the premium cable channel package, and it's more flexible. This is an understated benefit.

The final point I'm making is that people complaining here seem out to super-maximize their value from Netflix. Which is great, go for it. But it reminds me of the people who go to buffets and pig out because they are paying for an unlimited meal. You can pig out, as I said above, go for it. My point is just that you don't HAVE to pig out. Same with Netflix... the service is set up so that you can get better value compared to my local blockbuster or hollywood video and they can make a profit... that's what business is about.

As to the question of how many subscribe, Netflix now has over 1 million subscribers. I believe that the service is good enough that I recently dropped a little bit of money into their stock (check out their chart: NFLX). It's a risky business, especially with Blockbuster entering the same market (further validating that there is a market, btw), so it's not like I invested my life savings. ;)

Anyway, if it doesn't make sense for you, don't get it. I think it does make sense for many people, though. And, based on the article, if you stay within the 5 rental neighborhood, none of this long wait stuff happens to you.

light bulb: Maybe the people that run into delays are families? I could see a family running through 20 rentals a month. Or, at least more than 5. If you keep movies in the queue for the kids, especially during the summer....

Sujal

Check out Amazon, AOL, and who can forget Dr. Koop.com for examples on why this could be a bad thing.

Check out Amazon, AOL, and who can forget Dr. Koop.com for examples on why this could be a bad thing.

Check out Amazon, AOL, and who can forget Dr. Koop.com for examples on why this could be a bad thing.

http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/JetBlue_WPP_Sun.wm v

If Linux is so good, why don't they have more TV commercials?

For that matter, the $40 million for the jet iself was just a gesture. This is the way Steve made his new fortune: Jobs owns 30,000,001 shares of Pixar, currently valued at $1,563,000,000. The shares increased in value by about $690,000,000 in 2002, so the $1,200,000 he made for the jet last year is pretty meaningless.

For NASDAQ that is, they have been hit twice by those cute furry things. Once in 1987 and then again in 1994.

In the UK office we still joke about it, much to the annoyance of the management :)

Microsoft has only two profitable products (Office and Windows) that strongly depend on each other.

I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots. Microsoft has three profitable divisions: Client, Server Platform, and Information Worker. I'm hardly surprized that some dullards interpreted that as "Office and Windowz!", yet in reality those three divisions account for the overwhelming majority of products with the Microsoft name on it. SQL Server? Yup. Visual Studio? Yup. Visio? Yup. SNA Server? Yup. Indeed, if you looked within even the unprofitable divisions you would find a bevy of highly profitable items: The Home and Entertainment Divison encapsulates Microsoft hardware, such as mice and keyboards, which themselves are highly lauded and tremendously profitable, however their profitability is being masked by the xbox.

This is all so laughable anyways, and indicates the core naevity of most open sourcers. Egads Microsoft mentioned open source! The reality, of course, is that such filings must include forward looking risks of any sort, including potential lawsuits, and envisioned risks by the pundit community. The fact that open source is mentioned in there is a given. To make this even more hilarious, though, the prior quarterly report included the same risk statement, while the quarterly report before that included the statement "the availability of competitive products or services such as the Linux operating system at prices below Microsoft's prices or for no charge" as a risk factor. Looking at the annual report from 3 years ago yields the statement "With an increased attention toward open-source software, the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance. Several computer manufacturers preinstall Linux on PC Servers and many leading software developers have written applications that run on Linux. Microsoft Windows operating systems are also threatened by alternative platforms such as those based on Internet browsing software and Java technology promoted by AOL and Sun Microsystems. " and " The Company continues to face movements from PC-based applications to server-based applications or Web-based application hosting services, from proprietary software to open source software, and from PCs to Internet-based devices.". I'm sure I could go back two more years and find similar forward looking risk statements.

I suspect that someone read an SEC filing for the first time in their life and thought they found a real revelation (as did the Slashdot editors when they posted this), when it's the same thing that has appeared in their filings for years now.

Microsoft has only two profitable products (Office and Windows) that strongly depend on each other.

I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots. Microsoft has three profitable divisions: Client, Server Platform, and Information Worker. I'm hardly surprized that some dullards interpreted that as "Office and Windowz!", yet in reality those three divisions account for the overwhelming majority of products with the Microsoft name on it. SQL Server? Yup. Visual Studio? Yup. Visio? Yup. SNA Server? Yup. Indeed, if you looked within even the unprofitable divisions you would find a bevy of highly profitable items: The Home and Entertainment Divison encapsulates Microsoft hardware, such as mice and keyboards, which themselves are highly lauded and tremendously profitable, however their profitability is being masked by the xbox.

This is all so laughable anyways, and indicates the core naevity of most open sourcers. Egads Microsoft mentioned open source! The reality, of course, is that such filings must include forward looking risks of any sort, including potential lawsuits, and envisioned risks by the pundit community. The fact that open source is mentioned in there is a given. To make this even more hilarious, though, the prior quarterly report included the same risk statement, while the quarterly report before that included the statement "the availability of competitive products or services such as the Linux operating system at prices below Microsoft's prices or for no charge" as a risk factor. Looking at the annual report from 3 years ago yields the statement "With an increased attention toward open-source software, the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance. Several computer manufacturers preinstall Linux on PC Servers and many leading software developers have written applications that run on Linux. Microsoft Windows operating systems are also threatened by alternative platforms such as those based on Internet browsing software and Java technology promoted by AOL and Sun Microsystems. " and " The Company continues to face movements from PC-based applications to server-based applications or Web-based application hosting services, from proprietary software to open source software, and from PCs to Internet-based devices.". I'm sure I could go back two more years and find similar forward looking risk statements.

I suspect that someone read an SEC filing for the first time in their life and thought they found a real revelation (as did the Slashdot editors when they posted this), when it's the same thing that has appeared in their filings for years now.

RNWK CEO Rob Glaser owns a third of the company. His stock is worth ~$180M now that the stock trades at $3.50. It used to be worth ~$5B.

I bet he thought he was Bill Gates for a while there. Ha-ha.

I was hoping he would sink with his ship.

To answer your question, the revenue from the sales of services is only about one-third of their total revenues. I don't know if this is considered a lot or not.
IBM has a similar report: global services accounted for 41% of 2001 revenues. This is before the purchase of PWC, so it is probably going to be higher in 2002.

I'd sell sonicblue's stock short and profit from their stupidity.

Unless the rules have changed, you cannot short a stock once it falls below $5. Since Sonicblue is trading at around 55 cents, shorting would probably be impossible.

I think they're dead wrong; look at the device this article mentions.

"The Go-Video D2730 player's software will let consumers view content on their television that's stored on their PC using a remote control for navigation. The customer will be able to stream music files and other content on the DVD player. "

Hmm, what protocol does it use for filesharing? Netbios on a WiFi network? Will it play my ogg files? My DivX? My png photos? You can put together a shuttle SV-24 with a dvd player and a 6 channel sound card for about the same price they're quoting; that's what I use at home and I'm quite happy with it (except for the fact my TV won't do more than 640x480). If I were a gambling man, I'd sell sonicblue's stock short and profit from their stupidity.

Is EA really that big? I mean disney seems to own or have their fingers in just about all media. EA just doesn't seem as prevalent.

If curious check out the stats on the Nasdaq page. Disney has a market capitalization of $35 billion, whereas EA is a still very respectable $8.5 billion: Much larger than I imagined (considered how massive Disney is).

It's quite simple. It's called the "Greater Fool Theory."

The stock market is largely based on smoke and mirrors. When you buy a stock, you are exchanging real money for a piece of paper that someone has convinced you is worth more than what you paid. And you make money by selling it to somebody else, i.e., a Greater Fool, who thinks the same piece of paper is worth more than what you paid for it. And if you don't think there are any Greater Fools out there, Lesser Fools than yourself will gladly take it off your hands -- for less than what you, the Greater Fool, paid. And so it goes and so it goes.

The dot-com craze of the late 1990s is a perfect illustration. Take amazon.com for example. Seemingly intelligent people foolishly exchanged real money for pieces of paper giving them part ownership of Jeff Bezos' "K-Mart of the Web" money-losing-to-this-very-day mail order empire. Depending on who you ask, these pieces of paper cost $400 a pop at one point, literally more than their weight in pure gold. They did so thinking, hoping, believing, praying that other people would agree that a piece of paper with Jeff Bezos' smirking mug on it was worth more than its weight in gold. In so doing, these people would give them more for the same piece of paper than they paid. For most people, the game is up. Most people have caught on that his funny money isn't worth the paper it's printed on, much less its weight in gold. But, a few stalwart Fools still believe that if Jeff sells a dollar for eighty cents long enough (or gives away $11 every time somebody orders,) he'll make a ton of money on volume eventually.

Look at this chart showing Boeing's stock price, and you tell me if their business has gotten bad.

Enter MSFT at the top right of this page. ($ 52.54 at 3:42 pm).

Well, at least the executive staff at JDS earned it, right?

Disgusting executive compensation like that is completely unfounded in metrics: CEOs can yabber on about how it's necessary to get the best, but industry studies have found that the exorbinantly paid do not do any better than the conservatively paid. Indeed, one could make a credible case that such absurd compensation quickly creates executives who simply don't care about the health of a company: When you have $40 million after two years, do you really care if the company is going in the shitter? Joe Worker, who's scraping by month to month while waiting for these executives to lay off several hundred people; a collection that together make less than the single executive.

When organizations such as JDS lose money, fines should be doled out to executives who looted the boardrooms during the good times. Wouldn't that be a fair balance?

There's only one answer to that question. Wind River's slogan is "How Smart Things Think". Based on recent patent rulings, I'm pretty sure they've got the field covered with that slogan. Maybe that'll help them with this.

New York Stock Exchange.

NASDAQ.

1.How low can they go?

2. What is the President doing about it?

He's starting a war.

Look at what has happened to SGI since it began selling machines branded with Linux. Can you say "I want my stock to be worth $1?" SGI's current stock price

I hope Sun doesn't treat Linux as a buzzword; if they do they very well may end up like SGI.

What do you mean, not listed? Am I totally misunderstanding you, or what?
Anyway, Private Media Group is listed on Nasdaq as PRVT.

We, 3dfx owners know how a company they are... Since we are without new drivers since nvidia bought 3dfx.

No need to describe, I guess 3dfx owners with a clue understood what kind of a company they are... In hard way...

Oh me? When it ships (or shipped already), I am buying it... I won't buy from a company which left me in "digital cold" just because they bought my card/chip maker...

mod me as you wish, I couldn't stand not saying this stuff...

You've not got the slightest idea what you're talking about. Nvidia did not buy 3dfx. They bought the intellectual property of 3dfx. They bought most of the 3dfx design work, technology, patents, etc. They didn't buy any of the office space, manufacturing plants or employees. They bought the IP because they thought that there was something in it that would be useful in their future chip designs.

3dfx Interactive is still a company and is still in business, in a manner of speaking. If you want more info on the nVidia purchase of 3dfx IP, you can read about it here, here, or here. But don't go blaming nVidia because your favorite graphics card company stopped producing and supporting your product.

The rules for karma have changed several times in the last year. Originally, there was no karma cap. I was up to almost 200. Then there was a karma cap, but your old karma points didn't go away at once. They just leaked away slowly, because, above the karma cap, you could lose points, but never gain them. Now, I suspect that the numeric values have been capped, and the "Excellent" thing is to hide the karma loss.

Yes, Slashdot management likes to bitch about "karma whores", but from the people behind VA Linux, that's hollow.

For even more interesting views, check out this one

Their stock is definately in the toilet. Their own inverstor relation website is showing how poor of a company they are to invest in.

Bit of trouble ? With only a small fraction of their cash reserve they can buy out RedHat ....if it comes to that. Neither Ingo nor anyone else will be able to stop that. You can give it to them to "think out of the box".

Don't know about the other companies, but eUniverse's (EUNI) site says it is "the largest and fastest growing entertainment orientated network on the Internet. With over 19+ million unique visitors per month, it is consistently ranked as one of the Top 15 Most Visited Properties on the Internet by both Nielsen//NetRatings and Media Metrix"

Whichever is the real story, the RIAA has just handed the fair-use activists the small businesses of America as allies.

Credits to David of Noisebox for pointing out the IISX finance picture.

• Apple Computer, Inc. $8,714,424,780
• Gateway, Inc. $1,966,516,110

The market cap can't really tell you how the company is doing, you need to look at the change in price, as this lovely chart will show. To get an idea of Gateways financial woes beyond the stock price, you could look at recent market news, such a S&P's plans to cut Gateways credit, which was already downgraded to junk a few months a go, even further. See, if you get more meaningful facts, they look even worse ;)

Hope this helps,

MSBob

The problem is that the entire argument is based on the assumption that Apple isn't successful, when in fact they did were one of the most successful PC manufacturers in 2001. Go look at this chart and tell me where there is, "confusion between what's cool and what's going to be successful." Ditto to his argument that Microsoft and AOL, "get it." Need I provide another 2001 sotck chart?

The problem is that the entire argument is based on the assumption that Apple isn't successful, when in fact they did were one of the most successful PC manufacturers in 2001. Go look at this chart and tell me where there is, "confusion between what's cool and what's going to be successful." Ditto to his argument that Microsoft and AOL, "get it." Need I provide another 2001 sotck chart?

"NDS Group plc, a leading provider of conditional access systems and interactive applications for digital TV, and Moxi Digital, Inc. (formerly Rearden Steel Technologies, Inc.), a developer of advanced platforms and products for enhanced home entertainment, today announced a strategic relationship. The companies plan to deliver cable and satellite providers with an open, secure and revenue-generating platform for the home.
As part of the agreement, NDS will provide its Open VideoGuardTM conditional access security solution for integration into Moxi's advanced home entertainment platform, the Moxi Media Center (the Moxi MC, for short.) This new platform is designed as a flexible, alternative solution to the expensive, limited capability digital set-top boxes available to broadband network operators today. NDS' conditional access, which secures over 25 million digital Pay-TV set-top boxes worldwide, enables safe, secure consumer TV services and transactions and enables MSOs and satellite providers to build revenue-generating T-commerce applications.
The Moxi Media Center functions as a multimedia gateway for the home, enabling new revenue streams through the delivery of advanced services such as multi-TV personal video recording (PVR), cached video-on-demand (VOD), and whole-home digital music distribution. Moxi and NDS will work together to build full support for such next-generation services onto the NDS conditional access system. ....etc..."

NDS do the subscription security for satellite broadcasters to stop people watching what they haven't paid for. So yes, it will be pay-to-view, pay-to-listen, pay-to-record, pay-to-anything. Quick, buy that NDS stock!

Ow, my wrist.

Here's the link that doesn't require a login but it's only about VA requesting that the shareholders allow them to change the company name. Here

You may get your fill of Linux news at VA Linux. Also, another site has already been created to deal with non-geek news.

i think Linus is more concerned about TMTA

(just look at the charts over on Nasdaq )

not exactly a killer vote of confidence.

Let those numbers sink in. That means that RedHat's revenue was less than half of their loss in the second quarter. And this bodes well for RedHat because...?

Between this and the fact that RedHat's stock is at an all-time-low (just look at the charts over on Nasdaq) we have some SERIOUS troubles for Linux. I wonder if Linus has heard about this problem yet?

If a company stock trades at below $1 for a some period(I thought it was 30 days?), they are delisted from NASDAQ. There's more to this rule than that, I think there is also a $50 million market capitalization and maybe some other stuff.

The listing requirements are a bit more involved than that, but in the case of LNUX, you'd need either a minimum bid price of $1 per share and $10 million in shareholders' equity (and a couple of trivial requirements), or $3 per share and $50 million in market cap if there is no equity available to shareholders. So far, so good...but if the price skates below a buck, life is not going to be very happy.

Stocks trading under $5 are generally considered high risk and few investors will touch them.

There are many risks, the bid/ask spreads are large relative to share prices, such stocks are much more likely to become untradable or illiquid...but a really important part of the picture is that they aren't marginable (you can't borrow money against them) and, at least much of the time, aren't easily shortable.

But being delisted from the exchange is a sign that the vultures are circling. Companies almost never recover from that position.

Specifically, reverse stock splits almost never work; in some cases, a company with de-listed stock might be bought out by a firm that goes onto greater glory, or at least a stock price comfortably above a buck a share.

Larry? Larry Augustin?

Eventually, digital exchanges like Nasdaq and ISE will replace the open-outcry trading floors completely. This has already happened at the rest of the world's exchanges. To take on the task of running an exchange, the computer system must have great messaging throughput and great reliability. Windows NT in its various incarnations has not proven itself to be up to this task. Solaris and HP-UX are up to it. IBM and many other believe that Linux is also up it, and IBM is going to prove it.

One post's subject was "only one battle". This is true, but every war has a decisive battle that turns the tide in the favor of the victors. This deal could decide for years to come the OS to use for financial transaction servers. IBM is wisely positioning themselves to profit greatly if this happens by providing support and middleware. The importance of support and middleware for this kind of application cannot be overstated. A brilliant maneuver that beats Microsoft at their own game.

Electronic trading workstations are another story. Web browsers and Java simply do not have the power needed to make those platform independent. Almost all electronic trading software and other useful tools (like Excel) run on Windows. These workstations will be in Microsoft's hands until some group mounts a serious effort to supplant that software with superior Linux-based replacements.

I have much more to say on this matter, but I've probably bored you enough. Too bad I can't get a "+1:Long-winded" mod.

Not even close to the truth.

Apple's Market cap is 6.4 *BILLION*.
Microsoft "invested" $150 million in Apple in 1997 as a function of settlement for M$ dicking around with Apple and their tech. (Out of that $150M, 2/3 of it was for licensing.)

For their money, they picked up 150,000 shares of Apple stock that they couldn't sell until 8/5/00. There was one split that I know of prior to the sell point, which was a 2:1 split, which means that MS would hold 300,000 shares. If they still hold it (can't find records to indicate that they do) at current price puts it at about $5.4M in stock.
(If you take a high point in the stock after they were able to sell, it would have been about $18M worth of stock. But I don't know if any/all has been sold in the last year.)

So, no matter how you look at it, $5Million out of $6.4BILLION is a drop in the bucket. (For Apple. A pico-drop for MicroSoft.) Hardly what anyone would call "a large portion."

(Oh, and M$'s stock jumped nearly the cost of the investment in Apple when the news was made public. Of course.)

Not even close to the truth.

Apple's Market cap is 6.4 *BILLION*.
Microsoft "invested" $150 million in Apple in 1997 as a function of settlement for M$ dicking around with Apple and their tech. (Out of that $150M, 2/3 of it was for licensing.)

For their money, they picked up 150,000 shares of Apple stock that they couldn't sell until 8/5/00. There was one split that I know of prior to the sell point, which was a 2:1 split, which means that MS would hold 300,000 shares. If they still hold it (can't find records to indicate that they do) at current price puts it at about $5.4M in stock.
(If you take a high point in the stock after they were able to sell, it would have been about $18M worth of stock. But I don't know if any/all has been sold in the last year.)

So, no matter how you look at it, $5Million out of $6.4BILLION is a drop in the bucket. (For Apple. A pico-drop for MicroSoft.) Hardly what anyone would call "a large portion."

(Oh, and M$'s stock jumped nearly the cost of the investment in Apple when the news was made public. Of course.)