Slashdot Mirror

Dear Bride et al. Some day I hope the SEC catches up with you. We all know you're mouthing off in the news to pump the stock so that you can sell and get richer. That's no secret, we can all see it in your trade statements. Your mouth says one thing (all lies), your actions another (the whole truth and nothing but the truth). You use battary and deception to work your shady stockmarket magics, and it will catch up with you. I have a video-capture of the Adelphia directors being led off in hand-cuffs. They thought they'd get away with it too, just like you guys.

Mark my words, in a week we'll see seven more consecutive SELL filings in the database. They're greedy, and greedy people run the constant risk of taking it that one last step too far...

That said, I think this SCO news is great for humor. I can't wait till monday!

So they'll try their best to make the news again I see. Hope some critics get online to foul their scheme up.

Meanwhile, they're all selling. Sean Wilson (Sr Vp Corp Dev) is just the latest in a long row.

So they'll try their best to make the news again I see. Hope some critics get online to foul their scheme up.

Meanwhile, they're all selling. Sean Wilson (Sr Vp Corp Dev) is just the latest in a long row.

Uh, here is at least one of the splits.

I do believe there was a second as well, but I am not going to do your homework for you. This was the first hit on Google: "red hat" stock split.

As for options, the whole point is that the option price is less than the stock price - or else it would be much of an incentive, now would it? He had the option to buy Red Hat shares at about a buck, which, as you so astutely point out, is below the lowest price that Red Hat has ever traded.

As for the amount of options, yes, if you get in on the ground floor, you can get "HALF A MILLION DOLLARS" in stock options. Of course, since the company will be about five people at that point and have zero revenue, they are not worth much, and in today's climate, they are not likely to be worth much - ever. But some people get lucky.

In the future, before you go shooting your mouth off anonymously in public forums, take a second to do the most basic research. I'll get you started. When companies want to go public, they have to file an ownership statement called an "S-1". These have to be public record, and that record is kept on the Edgar system of the SEC. Pick a few of your favorite companies and check it out. I make learning fun!

Michael P Olson or friendly VP of Finance at SCO, sold off 8000 shares at 2003-07-11

[jole]

Michael P Olson or friendly VP of Finance at SCO, sold off 8000 shares at 2003-07-11

[jole]

when doing a careful examination of the SCO Group's SEC filings, at the end of March, these people purchased at $2.07 per share:
HUNSAKER (VP SALES) purchased 100,000
MCBRIDE (CEO) purchased 200,000
OLSON (VP) purchased 50,000
BENCH (CFO) purchased 100,000
BROUGHTON (VP INT'L SALES) purchased 50,000

now, between June and July, here's more activity:
HUNSAKER sold 10,000 shares at around $11 per share,
BENCH sold 14,000 shares at around $11 per share,
OLSON sold 6000 shares at around $9 per share,
BROUGHTON sold 15,000 shares at around $11 per share.

now, things are a bit more clear, are they not? this stock is going for a plummet, and most of the officers of SCO Group knew that it was going to be a quick, PR ride to the top and back down again.
they loaded up, and let it go.

now, they were able to do this at the expense of running Linux thru the gutter a bit.

here is where this is going: i don't know much about investing, and even less about 'shorting' a stock. could someone here on Slashdot with experience perhaps give me (us?) a clue on going about this? i firmly believe that this stock is on it's way down, and it would be nice to profit a bit from all this built up anger i've had regarding this fiasco.

The rats are fleeing the sinking ship. How is this suprise?

Maybe they should have spoken with Martha Stewart first.

Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.

Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.

Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.

Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.

Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.

Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.

What about Skousen K Freds buy option on 45000 shares? Seems like a self-sacrifical "must do something to show belief in our futute"-move on his part. It is dated several days before the filing you mention though.

I think, maybe SCO don't care what happened with BSD.

Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding their comments but I get the impression SCO seems to think they own C++ programming languages anyway.

As to this case, SCO now allege that IBM's support for Linux is killing Unix, but not too long ago, SCO discussed Unix's feature in their SEC filings.

Meanwhile, definitely worth checking out, there's a new S-3 filing by SCO

According to the S-3 filing at SEC

Major investors are going to sell 305,274 shares of Common Stock. Some of them are obvious VC firms dumping all of their shares. (Besides Canopy, the largest single holding listed to be sold are two different firms selling 36,266 shares, which amounts to all of their holdings.)

The Canopy Group itself will be unloading 174,340 of 5,492,834 shares.

There are 13,334,886 total shares of common stock outstanding.

You are talking about the SEC form 8-A12G/A from SEC's SCO page, correct?

It's all governed by General Corporation Law, in this case indemnification is limited by section (e)

All they're really saying is, if we didn't have seperate D&O policies for the directors and officers before, we do now. And some other stuff to try to prevent a hostile stock take over.

You are talking about the SEC form 8-A12G/A from SEC's SCO page, correct?

It's all governed by General Corporation Law, in this case indemnification is limited by section (e)

All they're really saying is, if we didn't have seperate D&O policies for the directors and officers before, we do now. And some other stuff to try to prevent a hostile stock take over.

Read it here. Shave off the filename to get a list of all documents in this filing.

[jole]

Our friend Reginald Charles (VP of International Sales, SCO) seems to have sold off another 5K set of shares.

He sold one set 2003-06-20, and this set 2003-06-25.

Only 155K to go Charles!

And this is exactly what is happening. The stock price is up from about $2 to $10+, and the Form 4 filings with the SEC show the corporate officers steadily selling stock.

You can verify this. Go to the SEC Web site, then click on "Forms and Filings[EDGAR]". On the next page, select "Companies and other filers". The CIK {Central Index Key] for SCO is '0001102542' (the leading zeroes are necessary).

• Three of the eight directors [vasoftware.com] at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures [paulallen.com].
• Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
• In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
• The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.

At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.

As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. [sec.gov] This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!

Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, i

SEC's complete listing of SCOX filings

I think there are a few missing from MSN

"During the six months ended AprilÂ30, 2003, the Company issued 218,000 shares of restricted stock to certain key employees and 150,000 shares of restricted common stock to members of the Company[base ']s board of directors. The restricted common stock issued to the board of directors was in lieu of cash compensation for their services to the Company during the 2003 fiscal year and the restrictions lapse at OctoberÂ31, 2003. The restrictions on the restricted stock awards granted to key employees lapse over a period of 24 months. The fair value of the restricted stock awards granted of $549,000 was recorded as a component of deferred compensation and is amortized to stock-based compensation as the restrictions lapse or as the services are performed.... During the six months ended AprilÂ30, 2003, the Company issued a ten-year option to acquire 100,000 shares of the Company[base ']s common stock at $1.52 per share to a consultant for services. The option vests as follows, (i) options to purchase 50,000 shares vest on a monthly basis over a 12-month period, and (ii) the remaining options to purchase 50,000 shares vest upon the achievement of certain milestones. The fair value of the options will be determined and recorded as expense in the periods the services are performed and the milestones are achieved. During the quarter ended AprilÂ30, 2003, the Company recorded $131,000 of expense related to this option. For the six months ended AprilÂ30, 2003, the Company recorded $186,000 of expense related to this option."

Sorry to reply to myself, but as far as I can tell

Robert K Bench 6/9 appears only on SEC not on MSN or Yahoo.

Same applies for Michael Olson 6/12

Same applies for Darl McBride's purchase at 0.001 dated 6/13

Sorry to reply to myself, but as far as I can tell

Robert K Bench 6/9 appears only on SEC not on MSN or Yahoo.

Same applies for Michael Olson 6/12

Same applies for Darl McBride's purchase at 0.001 dated 6/13

Sorry to reply to myself, but as far as I can tell

Robert K Bench 6/9 appears only on SEC not on MSN or Yahoo.

Same applies for Michael Olson 6/12

Same applies for Darl McBride's purchase at 0.001 dated 6/13

Yahoo seems to have lost some information (there was more there before).

Compare and contrast

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html (only 1 trade shown dated 6/20/2003 - claims this is all in last 2 years!)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/inside r/trans.asp?Symbol=SCOX - sales dated 6/20, 6/4, 4/8 etc.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=get company&CIK=0001102542&owner=include (SEC filings - the government site)

Not impling anything illegal, just think it's interesting!

Report this to the SEC and make some cash!

please people, wake up!
can't you see it's obvious what SCO is doing?

...

all SCO wants to do is jack the stock high enough, long enough for their CEO, VPs, etc to cash out nice and RICH, and leave a burning twisted pile of rubble at the end....

they probably figured IBM (or someone - say Mr. Bill at M$) might buy them out, but either way, they're getting fat and rich off the share prices.

so now you know the truth... what are ya gonna do about it?

its a stock scam, and the securities people should be all over this!

Word of advice; personally, I wouldn't accuse the SCO folks of running an illegal pump-and-dump scam in a public forum, since that could potentially lead to a libel suit. Since you've represented this as fact and not opinion, I'd say you're at pretty high risk...

"Winding Up Orders" are a bankruptcy issue.

Following a petition for Winding Up Order, either the company pays the debt or the court issues the winding up order. If successful, the court takes over the company's fiduciary responsibility. The court appoints a 'Liquidator' or 'Administrator', who is usually a specialist accountant from the private sector who attempts to rebuild or sell-off the company assets and pay it's debts.

UK Insolvency Law and FAQs.

This is all based on ancient tort law which the US shares with the UK, a quick search turns up this. Which highlights a substantially similar process for the US.

But this seems to be the wrong way to address a company, especially a company like SCO.

First, SCO doesn't care what you or I think about them. They want money.

More specifically, they want money for what they bought, as in "We have deep pockets and political connections. Show us the respect that we paid for."

Any protest of that type is unlikely to have the desired impact on SCO, the media or the outcome of the court case.

Second, if you think that there is something illegal happening at SCO, such as insider trading, buying and selling of stock by executives that is in opposition to to the interest of investors, lying on the quarterly and anuall reports, etc., then report that to the SEC. But be damned sure of your accusations.

Third, write well reasoned, insightful letters to the editor of major (business) news outlets. Be clear in your opinions and support all your claims with logical and ethical arguments. Business readers are not much swayed by pathos.

And be ready for the remote possibility that SCO may win the court case, despite having no valid claims. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future, and it's just the way it sometimes goes. I know it sucks to be in on the side of right in a losing battle, but there's a lot of that going around right now.

Take it from me - I work for a Fortune 500 company (no not microsoft ;-)) that gets protests pretty much *weekly* and the upshot of it is that company email gives logistical directions on where and how to avoid the protests. (ironically, I think that the protesters are *dead on* but believe me, its not going to change the company's practices. Nothing but an act of god is going to do that.)

Anyways, don't get me wrong. I think that SCO is a borderline illegal company, but to *really* hurt them where it counts, we need to organize online. Hurting them where it counts means presenting the SEC with a well-thought out case on why they need to be investigated.

I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.

Here's a SEC link that lets you enter a complaint. Hell, if SCO gets enough heat from this, they may divulge all. We deserve, as a community, to be able to evaluate their gripe objectively, and that requires full disclosure by SCO of what their gripe is. SCO's failure to do so is *hurting our livelihood* - and at the least it is libelous.

Anyways, below is the text of the original submission. I'm hoping to get it on the head Slashdot page, so if you could submit it as a story, I think it would do us all a favor. (Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean)

original submission:

I just read the vaguely demeaning forbes article describing the complacency of the linux community, and believe me, this "crunchie" wasn't pleased, at either a) being called a crunchie for having the ethics to be upset about what SCO is doing, or b) for being labeled as ineffective and powerless. The truth is, the open source community isn't powerless. The whole SCO incident has a very bad smell to it, and what they are doing (and the consequent effect on their stock price) is in my opinion highly unethical if not illegal. I am not a lawyer (or SEC official for that matter) but their stock price has jumped from 60 cents to $11 per share, in dubious circumstances... so in my opinion at the very least the SEC should be notified about the unsavory aspects of it and other pieces of background info so they can do an investigation and find out the facts for themselves. So - I think the open source community should take a stand. If you don't like what SCOX is doing, here is the sec complaint form where you can submit evidence, background facts, personal knowledge, and - if you think so - your opinion about how malfeasant SCOX's actions are and the damages that they are doing. (Any info about how SCOX insiders are capitalizing on the stock price would be especially helpful.. personally, its the element I find most distasteful of all, and if they find manipulation, its information the SEC can directly use.) How many people read slashdot? How would the SEC handle 500,000 complaints? Only time would tell - but I think at the minimum it would warrant an investigation, possibly even a class-action suit. Anyways, if you are going to submit, please be civil about it. The worst thing possible would be for the SEC to get lots of long-winded rants - they want courteous dialog and accurate information they can use, not a vitriolic screed of profan

Take it from me - I work for a Fortune 500 company (no not microsoft ;-)) that gets protests pretty much *weekly* and the upshot of it is that company email gives logistical directions on where and how to avoid the protests. (ironically, I think that the protesters are *dead on* but believe me, its not going to change the company's practices. Nothing but an act of god is going to do that.)

Anyways, don't get me wrong. I think that SCO is a borderline illegal company, but to *really* hurt them where it counts, we need to organize online. Hurting them where it counts means presenting the SEC with a well-thought out case on why they need to be investigated.

I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.

Here's a SEC link that lets you enter a complaint. Hell, if SCO gets enough heat from this, they may divulge all. We deserve, as a community, to be able to evaluate their gripe objectively, and that requires full disclosure by SCO of what their gripe is. SCO's failure to do so is *hurting our livelihood* - and at the least it is libelous.

Anyways, below is the text of the original submission. I'm hoping to get it on the head Slashdot page, so if you could submit it as a story, I think it would do us all a favor. (Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean)

original submission:

I just read the vaguely demeaning forbes article describing the complacency of the linux community, and believe me, this "crunchie" wasn't pleased, at either a) being called a crunchie for having the ethics to be upset about what SCO is doing, or b) for being labeled as ineffective and powerless. The truth is, the open source community isn't powerless. The whole SCO incident has a very bad smell to it, and what they are doing (and the consequent effect on their stock price) is in my opinion highly unethical if not illegal. I am not a lawyer (or SEC official for that matter) but their stock price has jumped from 60 cents to $11 per share, in dubious circumstances... so in my opinion at the very least the SEC should be notified about the unsavory aspects of it and other pieces of background info so they can do an investigation and find out the facts for themselves. So - I think the open source community should take a stand. If you don't like what SCOX is doing, here is the sec complaint form where you can submit evidence, background facts, personal knowledge, and - if you think so - your opinion about how malfeasant SCOX's actions are and the damages that they are doing. (Any info about how SCOX insiders are capitalizing on the stock price would be especially helpful.. personally, its the element I find most distasteful of all, and if they find manipulation, its information the SEC can directly use.) How many people read slashdot? How would the SEC handle 500,000 complaints? Only time would tell - but I think at the minimum it would warrant an investigation, possibly even a class-action suit. Anyways, if you are going to submit, please be civil about it. The worst thing possible would be for the SEC to get lots of long-winded rants - they want courteous dialog and accurate information they can use, not a vitriolic screed of profan

What we have to do is *organize*. I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.

Here's a SEC link that lets you enter a complaint. Hell, if SCO gets enough heat from this, they may divulge all. We deserve, as a community, to be able to evaluate their gripe objectively, and that requires full disclosure by SCO of what their gripe is. SCO's failure to do so is *hurting our livelihood* - and at the least it is libelous.

Anyways, below is the text of the original submission. I'm hoping to get it on the head Slashdot page, so if you could submit it as a story, I think it would do us all a favor. (Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean)

original submission:

I just read the vaguely demeaning forbes article describing the complacency of the linux community, and believe me, this "crunchie" wasn't pleased, at either a) being called a crunchie for having the ethics to be upset about what SCO is doing, or b) for being labeled as ineffective and powerless.

The truth is, the open source community isn't powerless. The whole SCO incident has a very bad smell to it, and what they are doing (and the consequent effect on their stock price) is in my opinion highly unethical if not illegal. I am not a lawyer (or SEC official for that matter) but their stock price has jumped from 60 cents to $11 per share, in dubious circumstances... so in my opinion at the very least the SEC should be notified about the unsavory aspects of it and other pieces of background info so they can do an investigation and find out the facts for themselves.

So - I think the open source community should take a stand. If you don't like what SCOX is doing, here is the sec complaint form where you can submit evidence, background facts, personal knowledge, and - if you think so - your opinion about how malfeasant SCOX's actions are and the damages that they are doing. (Any info about how SCOX insiders are capitalizing on the stock price would be especially helpful.. personally, its the element I find most distasteful of all, and if they find manipulation, its information the SEC can directly use.)

How many people read slashdot? How would the SEC handle 500,000 complaints? Only time would tell - but I think at the minimum it would warrant an investigation, possibly even a class-action suit.

Anyways, if you are going to submit, please be civil about it. The worst thing possible would be for the SEC to get lots of long-winded rants - they want courteous dialog and accurate information they can use, not a vitriolic screed of profanity. ( A long finding of fact and QA on what is found would also help, so they don't hear misinformation and hear the pertinent information loud and clear... but that's what slashdot discussions are for aren't they?? :) )

What we have to do is *organize*. I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.

Here's a SEC link that lets you enter a complaint. Hell, if SCO gets enough heat from this, they may divulge all. We deserve, as a community, to be able to evaluate their gripe objectively, and that requires full disclosure by SCO of what their gripe is. SCO's failure to do so is *hurting our livelihood* - and at the least it is libelous.

Anyways, below is the text of the original submission. I'm hoping to get it on the head Slashdot page, so if you could submit it as a story, I think it would do us all a favor. (Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean)

original submission:

I just read the vaguely demeaning forbes article describing the complacency of the linux community, and believe me, this "crunchie" wasn't pleased, at either a) being called a crunchie for having the ethics to be upset about what SCO is doing, or b) for being labeled as ineffective and powerless.

The truth is, the open source community isn't powerless. The whole SCO incident has a very bad smell to it, and what they are doing (and the consequent effect on their stock price) is in my opinion highly unethical if not illegal. I am not a lawyer (or SEC official for that matter) but their stock price has jumped from 60 cents to $11 per share, in dubious circumstances... so in my opinion at the very least the SEC should be notified about the unsavory aspects of it and other pieces of background info so they can do an investigation and find out the facts for themselves.

So - I think the open source community should take a stand. If you don't like what SCOX is doing, here is the sec complaint form where you can submit evidence, background facts, personal knowledge, and - if you think so - your opinion about how malfeasant SCOX's actions are and the damages that they are doing. (Any info about how SCOX insiders are capitalizing on the stock price would be especially helpful.. personally, its the element I find most distasteful of all, and if they find manipulation, its information the SEC can directly use.)

How many people read slashdot? How would the SEC handle 500,000 complaints? Only time would tell - but I think at the minimum it would warrant an investigation, possibly even a class-action suit.

Anyways, if you are going to submit, please be civil about it. The worst thing possible would be for the SEC to get lots of long-winded rants - they want courteous dialog and accurate information they can use, not a vitriolic screed of profanity. ( A long finding of fact and QA on what is found would also help, so they don't hear misinformation and hear the pertinent information loud and clear... but that's what slashdot discussions are for aren't they?? :) )

Wow, how interesting. Here is a priceless quote from their quarterly report:

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.

Hmm, ya think?

In the March trade, notice section 2. The issuer is listed as Caldera, but notice the trading symbol is SCOX. That's the same trading symbol as the Friday filing in section 2, even though the Friday one lists the issuer as The SCO Group.

So, I'm comparing oranges and oranges. (Or maybe rotten apples to rotten apples.) Also, if you look at a 5 day intraday trading chart for SCOX, you'll notice that there were some really large volume trades on Friday and Monday. Some approaching 100K in a single transaction. This for a stock that normally averages around 200K/day total. I believe that last Friday's total was 2.4M changing hands. A lot of people unloaded a lot of SCOX stock on Friday and Monday.

In the March trade, notice section 2. The issuer is listed as Caldera, but notice the trading symbol is SCOX. That's the same trading symbol as the Friday filing in section 2, even though the Friday one lists the issuer as The SCO Group.

So, I'm comparing oranges and oranges. (Or maybe rotten apples to rotten apples.) Also, if you look at a 5 day intraday trading chart for SCOX, you'll notice that there were some really large volume trades on Friday and Monday. Some approaching 100K in a single transaction. This for a stock that normally averages around 200K/day total. I believe that last Friday's total was 2.4M changing hands. A lot of people unloaded a lot of SCOX stock on Friday and Monday.

McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.

The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.

This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.

Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.

McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.

The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.

This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.

Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.

McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.

The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.

This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.

Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.

McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.

The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.

This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.

Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.

I was all fired up to do this myself before I really thought it through. We all know that SCOX will soon be worth $0.01 but what happens between now and then can ruin you if you short their stock today.

Here is an example timeline:

1. Today you short SCOX at $10/share knowing they'll probably be dead in a week.
2. Tomorrow SCO reveals source code which is indeed found in both UnixWare and Linux. SCOX rockets up to $150 because people are dumb and drooling over the $3 billion payoff.
3. In one week it is revealed that both stole that code from BSD. SCOX falls to $0.01. Yay!

Everyone is happy in one week except for you, because tomorrow your broker will come knocking asking you to buyback all the stock at $150/share. If you don't have enough cash in your account they'll liquidate your stock and take your house. Sorry.

New Tech Trading: Short Selling
SEC: Short Selling Restrictions
SEC: Short Sales

I was all fired up to do this myself before I really thought it through. We all know that SCOX will soon be worth $0.01 but what happens between now and then can ruin you if you short their stock today.

Here is an example timeline:

1. Today you short SCOX at $10/share knowing they'll probably be dead in a week.
2. Tomorrow SCO reveals source code which is indeed found in both UnixWare and Linux. SCOX rockets up to $150 because people are dumb and drooling over the $3 billion payoff.
3. In one week it is revealed that both stole that code from BSD. SCOX falls to $0.01. Yay!

Everyone is happy in one week except for you, because tomorrow your broker will come knocking asking you to buyback all the stock at $150/share. If you don't have enough cash in your account they'll liquidate your stock and take your house. Sorry.

New Tech Trading: Short Selling
SEC: Short Selling Restrictions
SEC: Short Sales

Bawa sold a little over 23,000 shares. He exercised a 7,600 share stock option and sold 15,000 exisiting shares. He has 0 left in the company. Maybe he realizes what the company is doing and did what a smart person would have done.

Olsen sold 6,000 and still owns over 66,000 shares. reference

Bench still owns over 235,000 shares after selling 14,000 shares. reference

IBM over the last month has had insider sales of over $380,000. SCO's total was about $363,000.

Bawa sold a little over 23,000 shares. He exercised a 7,600 share stock option and sold 15,000 exisiting shares. He has 0 left in the company. Maybe he realizes what the company is doing and did what a smart person would have done.

Olsen sold 6,000 and still owns over 66,000 shares. reference

Bench still owns over 235,000 shares after selling 14,000 shares. reference

IBM over the last month has had insider sales of over $380,000. SCO's total was about $363,000.