Slashdot Mirror

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

The timing of it is pretty rich. What with the worms and the SCO code.

I guess it's OK for him to divest, even the families of the senior officers have caught on.

Obviously, the employees at SCO read slashdot. With so much, perhaps unfounded, speculation going on at slashdot about insider trading, perhaps it's a good time to point out to our SCO readership the Insider Trading Bounty program. If there are any transactions going on by insiders that isn't listed here or here, the SEC, and slashdot, would like to know!

Obviously, the employees at SCO read slashdot. With so much, perhaps unfounded, speculation going on at slashdot about insider trading, perhaps it's a good time to point out to our SCO readership the Insider Trading Bounty program. If there are any transactions going on by insiders that isn't listed here or here, the SEC, and slashdot, would like to know!

From the Securities Exchange Act 1934 (as amended), section 32:

any person who willfully and knowingly makes, or causes to be made, any statement in any application, report, or document required to be filed under this title or any rule or regulation thereunder or any undertaking contained in a registration statement as provided in subsection (d) of section 15, or by any self-regulatory organization in connection with an application for membership or participation therein or to become associated with a member thereof, which statement was false or misleading with respect to any material fact, shall upon conviction be fined not more than $5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The SEC has a good page sumarizing the relevant US Federal laws. (Incidentally, according to Netcraft, www.sec.gov is running Linux. Do you suppose they've received their menacing letter and invoice from SCO yet? :-)

They're not. They are a longstanding part of the classic pump-and-dump, however.

Why don't journalists just ignore SCO...

1. This is Slashdot. There are no journalists here.
2. This is just a link to SCO's press release - there is no evidence that actual journalists are paying attention to it, as yet.
3. If SCO can move the markets with this horse manure, then it doesn't matter how badly it smells, it's still news.

I looked through the various SCO complaints at http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/, and I noticed something particularly rich. If you look at the original SCO complaint, you'll notice that they twice refer to IBM as a Delaware corporation. They are not; IBM is a New York corporation (reference their latest 10-Q). They fixed it in the June amended complaint, but screwing up something as basic as the identity of your defendant is still hideously sloppy.

Remainder of my .sig: be the majority of voters.

One of the execs have sold all he had, many still has a sizeable amount of SCO stock.

Details at SEC, search for SCO Group.

• Bawa Opindar, VP Global Services
  
  • Bought: 7,912 shares
    
  • Sold: 22,916 shares
    
  • Gain: $ 132,746.40
    
• Robert K. Bench, CFO
  
  • Sold: 18,000 shares
    
  • Gain: $ 153,531.50
    
• Ronald Charles Broughton, Sr VP Int'l Sales
  • Sold: 45,000 shares
  • Gain: $ 546,749.50
• Jeff F Hunsaker, VP Worldwide Mktng
  • Sold: 15,000 shares
  • Gain: $ 170,194.60
• Michael P Olson, VP Finance
  • Sold: 14,000 shares
  • Gain: $ 135,928.00
• Michael Sean Wilson, Sr VP Corp Dev
  • Bought: 12,000 shares
  • Sold: 12,000 shares
  • Gain: $ 121,365.00

All this and more may be found at SCOX's SEC Page.

SCO's executives may be personally guilty of violating securities law. I understand its executives have engaged in questionable insider trading, possibly to take advantage of the artificial inflation in SCO's stock price resulting from its allegations. The quantities of stock being sold off by SCO executives does not suggest they really believe they are about to win a billion dollar lawsuit. For insiders to trade based on information that is not available to the general public is an offense for which they may be subjected to stern punishment by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The stock of companies offerring Linux products and services may have been unfairly devalued as well. Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

It's not illegal for an inside to sell their stock when the price goes high. The rules (oversimplified) are a) insiders cannot sell their stock within a certain time frame of going public, and b) insiders must be able to justify their trade was based on factors other than their "inside" knowledge of some specific news. You also have to report your stock trades within a certain amount of time to the SEC. Dubya's been dinged a few times over the last one.

Now the thing here is the "good faith" clause. It means the company's executives and officers are given the benefit of the doubt and it's up to the complainant to prove the insiders behaved on secret knowledge. That is a lot harder to do than you think, even if prosecuting an "outsider" taking advantage of insider information. For Martha Stewart, she got ratted out by her stock broker. Otherwise, her case would have dragged on for years.

IANAL, but your best bet to nail them is to buy some of this inflated stock and when they lose the case and their stock tanks, start an investor class action lawsuit.

Makes me wonder if these folks are paying attention to SCO's execs....

CFO Robert K Bench sold 7000 shares this morning. Fortunately because of the big press release that SCO sold a license nobody noticed :)

This like needs to be put here more often. There's even XML data available. . .

--
me

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

Thanks for your help.

Every draft, though, has suggested that stockholders in any of the companies whose stock has been affected by SCO's shenanigans available themselves of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form.

The page points out that if you're concerned about security as your complaint is transmitted over the Internet, you can fill in all the fields, print it from your browser, then fax or snail mail it in.

The form is pretty detailed, to make sure they receive all the information they need. That suggests to me that the SEC pays attention to these complaints.

They managed to unload quite a bit the previous two months:

SEC filings on SCO Group

In general, their latest quarterly SEC filing contains lots of interesting bits and pieces. Like you can find that the MS licensing deal they had was probably worth some 8,25 million dollars? Guaranteed no more, unlikely to be less, seeing that previous quarter licensing revenue was $0.

You'll find that SCO Group still owes Nowell a noticable sum ($1.7 million) for Unix rights. You'll find they've burned more than $200.000.000 of venture capital, with little hope of recovering any of that except by a miracle ('Sue IBM? Brilliant idea!').

Their forward-looking statements also makes for interesting reading:

The Company anticipates that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase.

IOW, they've already filed with the SEC that they might stop selling any actual products. There's a truckload of warnings of potential hazards, most of which are very familiar to what has been discussed here and in other press.

The latest quarterly filing can be found at SEC or on: TheStreet.com

'Supernova' probably best describes what they're doing.

"There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants."

Well, two licenses. Look at SCO's Form 10-Q report for the quarter ending April 30th (search for Microsoft pg21). Emphasis mine.

...
This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations.

...

The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised.

You can happily go to http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm to file a complaint to SEC regarding SCO and see what happens.

According to SCO's 2nd Quarter 10-Q released on June 13, 2003 they have accumulated a deficit of $202,517,000.

Here are some interesting tidbits from the quarterly:

(1)The Company's revenue has historically been from two sources: (i) product license revenue, primarily from product sales to resellers and end users, and royalty revenue from product sales by source code OEMs; and (ii) service and support revenue, primarily from providing software updates, support and education and consulting services to end users. During the quarter ended April30, 2003, the Company recognized its first licensing revenue from its intellectual property initiative, SCOsource.

(2)Pursuit of the litigation against IBM and, potentially, others will be costly, and management expects the costs for legal fees could be substantial. In addition, the Company may experience a decrease in revenue as a result of the loss of sales of Linux products and initiatives previously undertaken jointly with IBM and others affiliated with IBM. The Company anticipates that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. There is also a risk that the assertion of the Company's intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect the Company's position in the marketplace and our results of operations. The ultimate outcome or potential effect on the Company's results of operations or financial position is not currently known or determinable.

[..then you get to the 'Oh and by the way we dont make any money' section]
(3)Risk Factors

We do not have a history of profitable operations.

The April30, 2003, quarter was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.

SCO Risk Factors

Jesus. Read some of this stuff, it basically outlines exactly what they've been trying. It was Filed on the 13th of June.

Risk Factors

We do not have a history of profitable operations.

The April 30, 2003, quarter was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.

Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.

We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in January 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. These two license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code. Due to a lack of historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. SCOsource licensing revenue is unlikely to produce stable, predictable revenue for the foreseeable future.

There's so much more...

Pursuit of the litigation against IBM and, potentially, others will be costly, and we expect our costs for legal fees could be substantial. In addition, we may experience a decrease in revenue as a result of the loss of sales of Linux products and initiatives previously undertaken jointly with IBM and others affiliated with IBM. We anticipate that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.

Go read. Now. Jesus christ. They have like 3 pages of this stuff.

This is a link to the SEC web site on all filings (including major stock purchases/sales) by SCO. I found it interesting.

Every director, officer or owner of more than ten percent of a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the '34 Act must file with the Commission a statement of ownership regarding such security. The initial filing is on Form 3 and changes are reported on Form 4. The Annual Statement of beneficial ownership of securities is on Form 5. The forms contain information on the reporting person's relationship to the company and on purchases and sales of such equity securities.

Example

See, FUD is bad no matter which way it is slung. Now go away before I feed feed you dessert.

SEC reports from SCO

The insider purchases and sales are "Form 4". Insiders have to file these within 48-72 hours or something like that.

If you wanna learn a little bit about being a stock geek ... read on.

First, how to find the stuff. Start at www.sec.gov. Look in the second section, "Filings and Forms". You can read the "Quick Edgar Tutorial" if you want, or go straight into "Search for Company Filings".

Click on "Companies & Other Filers" and type in "SCO".

Choose "Sco Group Inc".

Click on all the filings and start reading financialese. Hell, if you know any programming languages or scripting languages, financialese is not that hard to figure out.

Form 4 is "insider sales and purchases".
Form 10-Q is "quarterly report".
Form 10-K is "annual report".
Form PRE 14A and Form DEF 14A are the "proxy statement".

The proxy statement is where you find out how many shares and options the executives and directors get.

The form 4 is where you see many SCO execs selling mucho stock.

An executive can be fined or serve jail time if they lie in these reports, or if they fail to provide required information, so the quality of the information is better than other stuff they say which is NOT under penalty of perjury.

Watch out for the "risk factors". The way that companies get around the "must tell truth" and "must tell whole truth" requirements is to swamp their risk factors with extraneous crap. Like, for instance, the risk factors might say: "1. Martians might invade and disrupt our market. 2. Microsoft sells a product just like ours. 3. Airplanes might fly into our headquarters in Duluth. 4. Our top executives might catch Ebola." Only #2 is a real risk factor but they swamp it.

About 80% of the financial information available on the web is derivative of these reports, so if you read them on sec.gov, you get better info and cut out a lot of crap. Anything news-related takes a good long time to get into an SEC-report so you still have to read the news, but you can dig a lot of information out of the forms.

Have fun!

I mean.. what's there for SCO to counter-sue for? Remember, the do not want to have to display code in court, so they can't very well turn around and sue for the very thing RedHat disputing, namely infringement.

Or maybe they could, but to a layman that doesn't make any sense. Maybe good for one final pump of the stock though, so I guess there's some logic to that line of thought... yeah, we'll probably see a counter-suit in order for the insiders to pump the stock for another round of sell, sell, sell.

I can't see any registered sales for a while now. I wonder if maybe they know the earnings report is so very depressing that no insider dares to sell this close to it. Might look suspicious to sell just before announcing ten figure income and large overall losses... nah, they don't care -- The SEC is toothless.

Fight Microsoft where it hurts: ignore them.

But in the mean time,

• KDE 3.1.3 was released
• Gnome 2.2 was released
• Novell bough Ximian
• SuSe was granted Evaluation Assurance Level 2 (EAL2) of the Common Criteria
• Opera is gaining users

Start a movement to fill out SEC complains, then, in order to counter-weigh the stock implosion that appears to be at hand. Perhaps they can be caught mid-crash, peered at, and held up as a BAD COMPANY. Anyone in the world can file a complaint through the SEC about SCO. Tell your friends.

Link: http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec7040.htm

There is one very obvious reason for them to not talk about linux 2.6 now, and that is... they want to save some powder for later.

If they talked about all linux kernels today, then there would be one less outlandish cracksmokin' PR-release to put out later. One less tool for them to manipulate their stock again.

Now watch those fuckers sell, sell, sell, and just wait. As soon as linux 2.6.0 is official, SCO will be there, press-release in hand.

Shouldn't the shorters kick in on the fall and help it along, or?

--
Keep reloading and see the scumbags sell.

Yahoo understates seems to be missing some earlier sales in June (at least).

go here and look at Form-4s for even more sales.

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/

jeremycec writes " Evidently, nothing's been resolved since 2001 , when this happened the first time. In these Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction documents from Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., we see how the court stepped in to pull the plug on a system, which, through its abject lack of due care, left someone's important financial information wide open to attackers. According to the former CIO of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: 'For all practical purposes, we have no security, we have no infrastructure, ... Our entire network has no, firewalls on it. I don't like running a network that can be breached by a high school kid.' So, when the BIA could get no relief through Interior's IT Dept., it went to the courts. Source: Government Computer News "

I'd be interested to hear which people like the best. The Macintosh one is an obvious candidate...

By going with a standards-based service, not only would the service be easier to maintain, but they increase their market share by serving Mac users and every one else. A sale is a sale, the customer's choice of platform should be irrelevant.

Furthermore, there are still numbers of WinNT and Win98 users out there. Developing for MSIE ony is going to leave them out in the cold when MS drops the standalone version of MSIE.

So it'd be interesting to know if the service is letting the bottom line or their ideology decide? It can't be good for sales to turn away an arbitrary percentage of potential customers.

---
pump and dump

As the Wall Street Journal recently reported (04/19/02), companies in the United States have been reaping billions of dollars in tax breaks and death benefits from life insurance policies they took out on employees.

Taking advantage of an obscure line of insurance, which companies cynically refer to as "dead peasant's" or "janitor's" insurance, major corporations such as Wal-Mart, AT&T, and Disney have taken out life insurance policies on low-wage hourly employees that pay benefits to the company when the workers die.

Are you willing to handle the truth?

Last week SCO announced acquiring the assets and technology of Vultus, a web services company, who offer web development tools called WebFace ("Runs on Internet Explorer 5 and up").

While SCO predicted that they would obtain 15%-20% of a $3.7bn Web Services market, I have to admit to being perplexed how this is supposed to happen, and also wondering how well an Internet Explorer-based product could fit into SCO's UNIX offerings.

ComputerWorld has an alternative explanation of the Vultus acquisition, they call it: "SCO's Shell Game".

One thing is for sure - it sure is lucky that Vultus was in the same (Canopy-owned) building as SCO (check the picture), even before the acquisition!

Update: More on this story at GROKLAW

Repost: Form-4 filings with the SEC reveal Executives profiting from SCO stock sales: they made $398,833.90 in June, and $781,964.70 in July (so far)!

.. maybe investors should read about the "Risk Factors" here. To me that carefully worded document seems to be aimed at protecting the SCO management from just such a lawsuit.

While most everybody focuses on the merits of the SCO vs IBM (and Linux by implication) case, SCO execs have made a tidy profit (over $1,000,000 in June and July) by selling stock

Form-4 filings with the SEC reveal they made $398,833.90 in June, and $656,270.10 in July (so far)!

And there's more!

Remember that Canopy-owned company SCO just bought into, who's the leader? "Mike Meservy, CEO, Vultus, Inc"

Looks like he and Vultus, Inc. were themselves SCO shareholders even before SCO bought into Vultus. From excellent GROKLAW site about SCO v IBM: SCO has filed, on July 8, a Registration Statement on Form S-3, relating to "the public offering or distribution by selling stockholders of up to 305,274 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of The SCO Group, Inc." The shares will be sold by Vultus, Inc., The Canopy Group, Inc., Angel Partners Inc., Michael Meservy, Bruce K. Grant Jr., Ty D. Mattingly and R. Kevin Bean. Only Canopy Group, in this list, will retain any SCO stock. SCO "will not receive any proceeds from the sale or distribution of the common stock by the selling stockholders. ... On July 3, 2003, the last price for our common stock, as reported by the Nasdaq National Market, was $10.71."

SCO's Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales) just sold off 19900 pieces of stock at ~$13.1 > $260,000 worth. SEC, hello? Is this really okay?

Mod me off-topic, I don't care. For once it is actually correct, you cracksmokin' SCO-lovin' crap-moderating scumbags you.

And tomorrow I'll tell you how I really feel about this matter.

SCO's Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales) just sold off 19900 pieces of stock at ~$13.1 > $260,000 worth. SEC, hello? Is this really okay?

Mod me off-topic, I don't care. For once it is actually correct, you cracksmokin' SCO-lovin' crap-moderating scumbags you.

And tomorrow I'll tell you how I really feel about this matter.

I suggest that those of us that live in the US do the same and file a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

You can file online here.

Go here: The SEC to see the that 305,274 shares will become publically traded. Looks like many stockholders plan on cashing out.

If you wish to file a complaint with the SEC, you can find the directions (and even online forms) here:

http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml

Remember, be polite and businesslike in the text of your complaint. Be detailed, and make sure you are supplying facts that you can verify.

is how much SCO upper management has made off selling an artificially inflated stock (see for yourself). That is assuming that major insider trading activities are not being concealed some how, which, considering the ethical principles of the people involved, is a dubious assumption. Most of this stock selling is in lots under 6k of shares, which shows a concious effort to avoid scrutiny from the SEC.

Enron might have lied about large numbers, however, I am convinced that SCO represents the most a company has ever multiplied the perception of its own worth through blatant lies. This has either exposed something horrible about our financial system or the complete incompetence in this area on the part of investors (probably both . . .).