Slashdot Mirror

SCO SEC filings (and those of its insiders) are available on the SEC's "EDGAR" website at the following address:

SCO SEC Filings

Reports on stock transactions by insiders are reported on a document called a "Form 4". Additional information on insider stock holdings can be found in other documents, such as SCO's proxy statement (the "DEF 14A" document).

Sales (and purchases) of securities by an insider who possesses material non-public information is a violation of U.S. securities law. Looking at the Form 4 filings, however, note that most officer sales line items have a footnote "(1)" appended to them, which reads: "This sale was effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 sales plan adopted by the reporting person." What Rule 10b5-1 permits is an insider to (i) adopt a formal plan for share transactions at a time when he does not does possess material non-public information and (ii) make transactions at a later time in accordance with the plan even if the insider does possess material non-public information at such time -- the concept being that the purchase or sale decision is made at the earlier time. The plan could be something like: "Sell 1000 shares on the 1st day of each of the next five months if the stock price is over $10 per share on such day." I do not believe that such plans are filed with the SEC or otherwise publicly available.

Of course, the plan must be entered into at a time when the insider did not possess material non-public information and the rule says the plan must have been entered into "in good faith and not part of a plan to evade the prohibitions [on insider trading]". Thus, the contents of the plan of each insider and what the insider knew at the time the plan was created is relevant.

It does not appear that Opinder Bawa's sales, pursuant to which he appears to have sold all his shares, took place pursuant to a 10b5-1 plan (there is no footnote). Also note that Mr. Bawa signed his own Form 4, while the forms of the other recent selling officers were signed on their behalf by Kimberly Steele, who I would guess is an SCO administrative employee. Is Mr. Bawa still with SCO?

It would appear yes...but not really. I beleive that Darcy Mott's share is the same as Canopy Groups, but I'm not sure. Check out the original SEC filing here.

OK, these guys have the final say. Grep it for "empolyee" and you'll find (if I waded through the legal gook correctly) that having a plan to sell is OK, but selling in response to the information isn't, so my critic is correct.

That doesn't mean your hands are tied though. Obviously, you want to get rid of the stock if you have any. (let's forget about selling short, OK, most people never do that anyway).

How can you legally do that? Answer: sit on your shares and go to the media anonymously with your story, including the name of the company. You will cast suspicion on the entire staff, but what's a little suspicion on top of slavery?

Then, the company will have to either deny or confirm your story. If they confirm it, the stock goes down but there was nothing you could do about that anyway. If they deny it, that leaves a lot of interesting questions. Actually, if they deny it, you are in the same position as Enron employees were, except you aren't "locked out". I'd have no qualms about selling in that case, since the people doing the denying are the real criminals.

I think the most likely way this plays out is that the company has to hire and/or contract more people to do the job. Of course we all know that throwing more developers at a job won't get it done any faster. Does Wall Street know that? Maybe not. They may look at "company X is hiring" as a good sign. You know better, and all the information has now been publicly disclosed; so sell, Sell, SELL.

EDGAR shows quite a bit of activity on the exec's selling stock ...

Mr Darl? A one way ticket to Brazil?

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the quarterly report of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended April 30, 2003, the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:

1. The quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: Darl McBride, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 13, 2003

The entire SCO quarterly report is found here

Mr Darl? A one way ticket to Brazil?

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the quarterly report of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended April 30, 2003, the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:

1. The quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: Darl McBride, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 13, 2003

The entire SCO quarterly report is found here

Would it be possible to have a government entity look at the code to determine fraud?
Could the readers here at slashdot stop the meteoric rise of SCO stock?
Go to The SEC complaints site
Fill out a complaint for False or misleading statements about a company complaint, a price fixing complaint, or a fraud in the marketing of securities complaint.
If enough complaints happen at once, coupled with the strange stock price activity of late. The SEC might start an investigation. Maybe the SEC can look at the code and determine whether or not they are lying just to make their stock skyrocket.

You are correct, both on the date and on the 8-k filing.

I had gone searching for it and found a number of filings like this 10K. In part IV, section 3 (page 21), titled "3. Exhibit Listing," you find the following:

2.0 Asset Purchase Agreement By and Between The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc. (4)

I had misread this as referring to note 2 in the notes instead of the correct note 4. Note 4 reads:

(4) Incorporated by reference to the Form 8-K filed on December 20, 1995.

However, there is no 8-K online for Santa Cruz Operation, or in fact, any pre-1996 items. Hope this helps. If you find it, can you post a copy!!!

I'll even save you the trouble of looking for the contact page: Here it is. You probably want the "enforcement" mailbox...

I'll even save you the trouble of looking for the contact page: Here it is. You probably want the "enforcement" mailbox...

Enron, too, was rolling in dough until they got audited. Regarding the mythical $40 billion, although Microsoft reported a profit in 1998, it was later corrected to be a loss of $18 000 000 000 USD. Now that was when times were good and they had product to sell.

If Microsoft were to dry up and blow away, the IT sector would actually pick up. With Deflation/Depression/Recession hanging over the U.S. the last thing needed is economic sabotage caused from trying to keep the dead company afloat at the expense of the rest of the economy.

Time to cash out.

How novel - you don't count the money until you get it. I just love accounting...being accounting, though, means that there are still exceptions and "interpretations" of the rules...

If you really believe this then please file a complaint with the SEC yourself. They make it real easy, and you can even file directly on line: SEC complaint center. Note that the forms are directed towards investors, but the SEC will still take action if they recieve enough reports from concerned citizens.

SCO Group Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench sold 7,000 of his 245,000 SCO shares Monday, two business days after the Unix software company's stock price surged on news of a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Have a complaint? Make sure the SEC knows about it.

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

Slashdot reader SgtChaireBourne mentioned this 2 weeks ago in a comment titled Pump & Dump, in response to a post of mine saying that probably Microsoft code is difficult to maintain because Microsoft isn't fixing bugs.

According to SgtChaireBourne, selling of Microsoft stock by Microsoft executives is common. He said, "Both the frequency and volume of sales is increasing: They're all selling as fast as they get."

SgtChaireBourne pointed to the SEC (U.S. government Securities and Exchange Commission) list of Microsoft executive trades of stock. I looked around and quickly found an example. A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock and sold it the same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.

SgtChaireBourne also said, "Don't forget that benefits [employee benefits at Microsoft] have been cut way back and there's also been outsourcing like mad. Consultants and contractors don't show up as layoffs when you let them go.

Earlier in this thread, RoLi said, "Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles)." (RoLi's comment #6030636.)

To this must be added that most people who bought a computer as powerful as a Pentium III 866 MHz won't buy another computer. The faster Pentium IIIs were good enough for almost everyone. I have often seen computers survive for more than 10 years. I have a voicemail computer with a 386 SX-16 processor that is perhaps 15 years old, and has been in continual use. The computer market is fast collapsing.

Slashdot reader SgtChaireBourne mentioned this 2 weeks ago in a comment titled Pump & Dump, in response to a post of mine saying that probably Microsoft code is difficult to maintain because Microsoft isn't fixing bugs.

According to SgtChaireBourne, selling of Microsoft stock by Microsoft executives is common. He said, "Both the frequency and volume of sales is increasing: They're all selling as fast as they get."

SgtChaireBourne pointed to the SEC (U.S. government Securities and Exchange Commission) list of Microsoft executive trades of stock. I looked around and quickly found an example. A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock and sold it the same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.

SgtChaireBourne also said, "Don't forget that benefits [employee benefits at Microsoft] have been cut way back and there's also been outsourcing like mad. Consultants and contractors don't show up as layoffs when you let them go.

Earlier in this thread, RoLi said, "Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles)." (RoLi's comment #6030636.)

To this must be added that most people who bought a computer as powerful as a Pentium III 866 MHz won't buy another computer. The faster Pentium IIIs were good enough for almost everyone. I have often seen computers survive for more than 10 years. I have a voicemail computer with a 386 SX-16 processor that is perhaps 15 years old, and has been in continual use. The computer market is fast collapsing.

Slashdot reader SgtChaireBourne mentioned this 2 weeks ago in a comment titled Pump & Dump, in response to a post of mine saying that probably Microsoft code is difficult to maintain because Microsoft isn't fixing bugs.

According to SgtChaireBourne, selling of Microsoft stock by Microsoft executives is common. He said, "Both the frequency and volume of sales is increasing: They're all selling as fast as they get."

SgtChaireBourne pointed to the SEC (U.S. government Securities and Exchange Commission) list of Microsoft executive trades of stock. I looked around and quickly found an example. A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock and sold it the same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.

SgtChaireBourne also said, "Don't forget that benefits [employee benefits at Microsoft] have been cut way back and there's also been outsourcing like mad. Consultants and contractors don't show up as layoffs when you let them go.

Earlier in this thread, RoLi said, "Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles)." (RoLi's comment #6030636.)

To this must be added that most people who bought a computer as powerful as a Pentium III 866 MHz won't buy another computer. The faster Pentium IIIs were good enough for almost everyone. I have often seen computers survive for more than 10 years. I have a voicemail computer with a 386 SX-16 processor that is perhaps 15 years old, and has been in continual use. The computer market is fast collapsing.

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

I refer you to rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. There are (at least) 2 reasons why your proposal would be excluded (see question 9).

Reason 1 - "(5) Relevance: If the proposal relates to operations which account for less than 5 percent of the company's total assets at the end of its most recent fiscal year, and for less than 5 percent of its net earnings and gross sales for its most recent fiscal year, and is not otherwise significantly related to the company's business;"

Remember that AOL is a very small part of AOL TW and the cost of the CD's would be way less than 5%.

Reason 2 - "(7) Management functions: If the proposal deals with a matter relating to the company's ordinary business operations;"

I think deciding on advertising methods falls under the "ordinary business operations."

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

• Three of the eight directors 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.
  
• 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.
  

Before everyone starts jumping up and down at how profitabl Amazon really is, lets actually look at some facts.

I direct you to their latest quarterly results. Some highlights that are discernable pretty much at a glance:

• Amazon has never actually posted a profit.
• To date, Amazon has amassed losses of nearly $3 billion US dollars. That's impressive. It also means the company would have to post some pretty impressive profits before you can expect a dividend. Very importantly, it's unsustainable.
• Amazon currently has a stockholder deficit. That means that they have more debts than assets. Specifically, what this means is that if the company were to liquidate, the stockholders would get nothing. Nothing at all. There aren't enough assets in the firm to cover contractual debts!

  This, of course, means the stock is worthless.

Now, to their credit, Amazon has actually been successful at cutting their losses. The losses are no longer absurd, they are merely irritating. This shows progress.

To all of you saying "this is merely reinvestment, and the losses are intentional!", I say pish-posh! The company is public. Moreover, the company is a for-profit organization. That means that stockholders have an expectation of profits, which manifest as either devidends (paid out of a company's retained earnings) or growth (which is really the expectation that dividends will be received at some point, or a dramatic improvement in the company's balance sheet).

Remember: when you pay taxes, you don't give up your entire profit. You give up a part. Spending money frivolously on bogus, unnecessary expenditures merely to avoid paying taxes is:

• Irresponsible, because that money could be profit that is retained.
• Outright theft. The money is not the management's. The money belongs to shareholders. You would not want Amazon to build an extra warehouse any more than you want the former CEO of Tyco to buy his $7000 shower curtains.

So please, next time, actually look at the facts before declaring that Amazon posted a profit. It simply isn't true. This quarter, they aren't even cash-positive.

Kinda like when DanQuayle used to get sent out to publicly spell potato/potatoe/tomato/tomatoe to take the heat off of Big Bush. Or when Monica showed off her stained dress to let the DMCA have a little breathing room.

Very interesting links.

Look at this: A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock 3 days ago and sold it that same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.

Does he know something normal investors don't? Isn't he indicating that he expects MS shares to go down?

Very interesting links.

Look at this: A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock 3 days ago and sold it that same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.

Does he know something normal investors don't? Isn't he indicating that he expects MS shares to go down?

That Microsoft could have fixed many more bugs, is something that could be see as one possibility, but in only the past tense. It looks like things got out of hand a while ago and that the management could be just riding the company down - pump and dump

Don't forget that benefits have been cut way back and there's also been outsourcing like mad. Consultants and contractors don't show up as layoffs when you let them go.

How about reporting them to the SEC.

Years ago I got a offer from Madera International (symbol WOOD) and they said their stock was going to hit $1.20 per share at any time. This was very early in the spaming game and I wanted to find out how much people would fall for this. I called up my broker and asked how much to buy this fine stock. She said it would be $25 in fees and the smallest lot I could buy was something like 400 shares since their value was so low. Due to some miscommunication, she took this as a request to buy 400 shares. Since it would cost me another $25 to unload it, I decided, I would keep it as a reminder to chart its progress over the next few years. From a high of nearly .06 a share it simply fell. Today I found that its value is now $0.00. Right now the 1st link from google is a SEC report about fraud and stuff. One of these days I think I'll write up this story to tell other people what kind of people are dealing with when they get stock tips from people they don't know.

Madera International started out importing assult rifles until a law stoped that. Then they went into the business of cutting down rainforest. For a while they had a nice web page up saying how you could give them $10 and they would plant a tree in the rainforest to replace one cut down by loggers. According to the SEC, that wasn't their only scam.

Strawberry Shortcake, Popples, Care Bears and related trademarks are federally registered trademarks of Those Characters From Cleveland ("TCFC"), an American Greetings Company. All 978 Trademark Records at USPTO.gov

American Greetings Corporation (AM) (#2 US maker of greeting cards)
One American Road , Cleveland, Ohio

DesignWare party goods, GuildHouse candles, PlusMark gift wrap, and Designers' Collection stationery, balloons, giftware

Subsidiaries:
Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc. (character licensing)
AGC, Inc. (Design licensing)
Learning Horizons (supplemental educational products)
Magnivision (nonprescription reading glasses)
AmericanGreetings.com (online cards)
Bluemountain.com
Beatgreets.com
Passitar ound.com
AG Industries, Inc. (Product display fixtures)
Gibson Greetings, Inc.
American Pie Acquisition Corp.
Egreetings Network, Inc. (egreetings.com)
Plus Mark, Inc.
Carlton Cards Retail, Inc.
CPS Company of Delaware Inc.
Carlton Cards Limited (Canada, UK)
Camden Graphics Group (UK)
Hanson White Ltd. (UK)
Gibson Greetings International Limited (UK)
The Ink Group Publishers Ltd. (U.K.)
Carlton Cards Ltd. (Ireland)
Carlton Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
John Sands (Australia, New Zealand) Ltd.
The Ink Group PTY Ltd. (Australia)
The Ink Group NZ Ltd.
S.A. Greetings Company (PTY) Ltd. (South Africa)
Memory Lane SDN BHD (85% owned) (Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Malaysia)

Top Competitors:
Hallmark (principal competitor)
123Greetings
Corbis - owned by Microsoft

Last 10k

Looks like someone has beat you to it.

I was thinking about this back when I first saw the article.

After all, according to the SEC insider trading is defined as

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security.

Clearly the information he had was nonpublic and material, so he is guilty. (Or would be, if he actually existed) Just because it is public in the future wouldn't be a defense, as most illegal insider trades are based on information that will be public at some future time.

Usually, the practice of sending out items without asking for payment is known as "Marketing". Giving out promo materials is something dreamed up by those guys you've heard about, but never actually seen, who live in the fancy offices while you're stuck in a cube. Strangely enough, they usually get lots and lots of money, and every company seems to have them. Coke spent $837 million on marketing in 2002 (it's down there on page 81). Believe me, they don't care if some spammer in West Bloomfield, Michigan suddenly wants to get a soda fountain catalog. If 50% of their marketing leads were bogus, they'd care.

"As you understand it"?

Here's a link to the latest MS quarterly report at the SEC: Jan 10Q

It shows about $43 billion in cash and short-term investments. $5.5B in cash. (Why, they could almost afford to pay a RIAA judgement.)

Microsoft isn't a software company. It's a bank... Given that they have such market dominance in their original field, they have no way to grow except to expand into other areas. That's the problem with dominating a market; nowhere to go but down or out.

Besides, despite what you may think OSS is really hurting MS's plans. It has completely blocked their move into high end business computing (where the real money is), and consumer level OSS products directly threaten MSs profit centers. Open Office is a direct threat to Office (and runs on Windows). GNU/Linux seems to be making serious inroads in the home market (and don't forget it is the official operating system of China).

Microsoft won't last the 300 years of the slave trading corporations of the 16th century, and it certainly won't die anytime soon, but it won't take too long before they arn't so flush with cash (especially since it claims to be holding onto it's $43 Billion cash reserve to fend off future lawsuits).

At the same time, many are finding that in many cases they don't need MS-Windows any more even on the desktop. OS X and even some of the major Linux distributions are turning out to be more efficient and cost effective choices for some on the desktop. StarOffice and OpenOffice have made such advances that unless one really likes the security problems and incompatible file formats of MS-Office there's no reason not to migrate.

The rest should go to content production.

So, I'm still asking, where the fuck did their money go to?

The last company I worked for was a software company that delivered it's products over the internet. By your logic, we should have spent 99% of our income on software development. This was absolutely not the case, as only 30% of the staff were engineers. There is a lot more to a company than its core business: marketing, sales, HR, operations. Salon needs all of these (and before you dispute it, salesmen are needs to sell ads).

Anyway, if you want to know where their money goes, just look it up. It's all in the SEC's EDGAR database. Here is their most recent filing. If you don't want to look it up, last year they spent about 4.5 million on "content production" and about 2.5 million on sales. They spent about 1.5 million on "administrative and general" which I'm sure includes that enormous rent, and all the management and HR staff positions.

Furthermore, if you read the link above, you'll see they had a 17% increase in revenue last year and a 21% decrease in operating expenses. Combined, these led them to reduce thier losses by 55%. Clearly, they are on the right track and just need more time.

McEntire doesn't get it.

Most of the Linux distro revenue comes from professional servers and technical workstation users who want paid support. These users couldn't care if MS gave away their products. They would consider switching to, say, IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris if the price was right and the apps available. But not to Windows.

The fact that this guy is not aware of this simple market reality and yet manages a stock portfolio is really scary. Keep away from his Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund.

Now, on another hand, your argument about Linux on the desktop makes much more sense:

I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.

Now that's a valid argument. It would not hurt the server sales but it would certainly hurt the Linux desktop numbers.

However, keep in mind that Microsoft depends on the value of its stock in order to retain employees with stock options. Now take a look at MS'S SEC filing, especially Note 9, "Segment information". Their operating systems and applications account for more than 86% of their sales income (financial activities excluded). The other divisions, entertainment and consumer electronics, are barely showing up on the radar screen. Even if they were profitable, they really couldn't scale up to the Office+Windows income. A sustained price cut on Windows and Office would hurt MS's income very badly, send their stock price down, and bring down their option-based financial Ponzi scheme. So they just cannot afford to do it.

See Bill Parish's report for an overview of MS's financial pyramid. Recommended reading to understand what makes the Redmond Beat tick.

-- SysKoll

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/VA Linux investigation was held at the SEC Northeast Regional Office in Manhattan. More specifically, 7 World Trade Center, Suite 1300. The board decided that a simple burglary or arson attempt would not be satisfactory to destroy the evidence; anything so simple had a significant chance of being botched, and regardless of success would leave too many witnesses or living accomplices.

It was then that Eric S. Raymond suggested something he had read in a book by Tom Clancy. Crashing two planes into the World Trade Center Plaza would guarantee the destruction of the SEC offices, killing the operatives and possibly a number of SEC investigators at the same time. The plan seemed flawless, and would cost little more than the price of a few plane tickets. In a secret session, the board voted unanimously in favour of Eric's suggestion, and began to put it into action.

VA Software/Linux, at the time of planning the attacks, had no shortage of H1-B visa workers, who they employed for the purpose of writing and improving hacking, encryption, and other terrorist tools for the Linux operating system. It had been decided that a hand-picked few of these foreign H1-B workers would be used as the "patsies" in the operation. A contest was held, and the most zealotous Linux advocates were chosen for this secret assignment, direct from the board of directors. They accepted their mission after being told that, if successful, it would guarantee the adoption of Linux in the desktop market.

Alan Cox was brought into the fold to provide some planning and logistics for the mission. It was he who determined that since there was no adequate flight simulator software for Linux, the patsies would need to train at a flight school in order to pull off the plan successfully. It was also his idea to hijack a third and fourth plane for the purpose of crashing them into Washington D.C., to express his extreme rage over the DMCA, or Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The board of directors agreed with this addition to the plan in the hopes that it would help divert attention from the purpose of the WTC attack.

The H1-B workers were given false identities by using Linux hacking tools. Once they had attended the necessary flight training, they stayed at the Massachusetts home of Richard M. Stallman for a brief "faith building" retreat. During this time spent at the house of Stallman, between the nauseating stench of patchouli, Stallman's incessant, pitiful recorder playing, and Stallman's droning seminars on the grammatical and syntactical accuracy of various statements by Microsoft representatives, the H1-B workers were effectively hypnotized to the point that they were ready to lay down their lives for Free Software. It was then that they departed for Boston's Logan International Airport to board the planes.

(The preceding inside information has been obtained from a credible source close to the VA Linux/Software Board of Directors. He/she is in hiding for obvious reasons in light of this damning evidence, but has presented hard, physical evidence of VA Software/Linux's complicity in the events of 9/11 to federal investigators.)

Troll 68 of 208 from the annals of the Troll Library .

Just ask Rodona Garst or her "customer" who paid for the pump and dump, Mark Rice for what their take on this scheme is. Details of their pump and dump can be found here.

And since everyone loves to see spammers get theirs, go visit Behind Enemy Lines. Be sure to visit the Lets Get Brutal section to see what spammers look like in various states of undress!

Just ask Rodona Garst or her "customer" who paid for the pump and dump, Mark Rice for what their take on this scheme is. Details of their pump and dump can be found here.

And since everyone loves to see spammers get theirs, go visit Behind Enemy Lines. Be sure to visit the Lets Get Brutal section to see what spammers look like in various states of undress!

At any publically traded US corporation, you can go to the SEC EDGAR database of all Federal filings with respect to the financial condition of a company.

The suits for the most part tell the truth in these reports, because lying can get corporate officers a quick trip to Club Fed.

As an exercise, go to the EDGAR database and look up the report (either 8K annual or 10Q quarterly, I'm not sure which) in which MS discusses its potential trouble from Open Source.

If you're thinking of working for a company, it's your responsibility to get this kind of info before signing on. If they're in the kind of financial trouble that will interfere with the promises they made you before hitting you up for a credit report, be assured they won't tell you themselves.

The security push marketed by Chairman Bill and co. seems to have little or nothing to do with security and is perhaps only a smoke screen to distract from lobbying efforts, other security privacy and false advertising problems, or losses on various fronts. Alternately, the security rhetoric could be a simple case of "pump-n-dump" as options are offloaded to chumps.

Seriously, that company has such a long and poor track record on all fronts, except marketing, that it is not a viable alternative to consider for servers or embedded systems where *BSD, Linux, QNX, Solaris, and others are best practice. Similarly, the desktop market is looking for security, stability, ease of use, ease of maintenance areas where Microsoft is far behind OS X and the major Linux distros.

They had their chance, in fact many. For a dot-com, they've had a long run, but now the best thing they could do for the economy and for the Internet would be to get out of the way.

While you don't actually agree with the grandparent post that "only Windows and Office make money", you do seem to support it by refuting sql*kitten. However, take alook at the link that you yourself gave.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/0001 03221002001614/d10q.htm

Three Microsoft divisions are highly profitable: These include Client (Windows XP Professional and Home, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows NT Workstation, Windows Me, Windows 98, and embedded systems), Server Paltforms (Windows Server, SQL Server, Exchange Server, Systems Management Server, Windows Terminal Server, and Small Business Server), and Information Worker (Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, Visio, other standalone information worker applications, SharePoint Portal Server and CALs, and professional product support services). The grandparent's statement that the only profitable segemnts of Microsoft are "Windows and Office" is ridiculously disingenous and grossly inaccurate: The overwhelming majority of Microsoft's development effort is profitable.

What isn't profitable? MSN, the Entertainment division (XBox), Windows CE (expect a big turnaround in coming quarters) and the newly organized "Business Solutions" (which includes the newly acquired Great Plains Software). Anyone who doesn't think that division will be highly profitable in a couple of quarters is deluded.

For all the slashdotters out there with an axe to grind towards Microsoft, and a fervent desire to "be different", realize that the biggest mistake you can ever make is to underestimate your foe. The implication here is that Microsoft is riding the coattails of their purported monopoly [insert some comment from someone saying "CONVICTED MONOPOLY"...I presume they call Kevin Mitnick a "convicted hacker" without subtext], rather than the extremely successful (and agile) software company that they are.

Last time I checked, Microsoft was losing money except for two areas dependent on monopoly rents. Not only that, "adjustments" to their financial statements seem to put them $18 billion into the red, that during a time when sales were good compared to recent years.

If nothing else, Microsoft's behavior has been like they do not expect to be around in 12 months. The recent treatment of Sendo and similar treatment of past partners, extortion of customers using the Business Software Alliance, unfavorable licensing 6, and even the faked video testimonies in federal court are not what you'd expect from a company that plans to stay in business. Rather it seems that Microsoft is just another dot-com that is now beginning re-entry.

Free as in market.

I'm no handwritting expert, but comparing the signature from this SEC filing to the one on the cover of the magazine seems to show it's a fake.

There probably aren't even 3 million macs today in total.

Wrong -- a quick look at Apple's most recent annual report reveals that Apple sold over 3 million Macs in FY 2002 alone, and over 10 million over the last three years.

In fact, Apple sold less than 3 million units in only two of the last ten years.