Slashdot Mirror

Did you buy Google stock without reading their explicit, up-front statement that they would not be providing guidance? If you're too lazy to hunt for it, here it is:

Although we may discuss long term trends in our business, we do not plan to give earnings guidance in the traditional sense. We are not able to predict our business within a narrow range for each quarter. We recognize that our duty is to advance our shareholders' interests, and we believe that artificially creating short term target numbers serves our shareholders poorly. We would prefer not to be asked to make such predictions, and if asked we will respectfully decline. A management team distracted by a series of short term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half hour.

For purposes of this presentation, the Company prior to the January 9, 1992 effective date of its Plan of Reorganization (the "Plan of Reorganization") under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") is referred to as the "Predecessor Company," and the Company, after the effective date of the Plan of Reorganization, is referred to as "Reorganized Activision."

Google makes a ton of money from AdSense ads on other web pages as well. According to their 2004 annual report (warning: tiny fonts and huge amounts of text) page 26, in 2004 Google made 48% of its overall revenues from web sites outside its own domain ("Google Network web sites") versus 52% of its overall revenues from AdWords on its own domain. OK, I exaggerated when I said it "does nothing for Google's bottom line," but advertising on Google's own properties might not grow as much when you compare their sites to the rest of the AdSense-using Internet.

What the poster meant to talk about was accredited investors.

And it's not so much a "you could have problems when you go public" thing.. it's more of a "you could go to prison for selling a non-registered security to a non-accredited investor" thing.

The title of the article at the Register is misleading. Like all politically calculated red herrings, a soundbite was used in order to lure your attention away from the context of the full statement.

What statement?

Let me give you the link to the SEC quarterly filing so you can judge for yourself.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802301/0001 19312506023752/d10q.htm

What context?

After laying out what the company is doing to right itself, it also lays out possible business transactions that could change it's fiscal profile. The final sentence in this last paragraph of the summary is:

If we fail to implement one or more of these alternatives successfully and we have a significant shortfall against our fiscal 2006 operating plan, we could be forced to seek protection under bankruptcy laws.

What motive does the Register have?

I am glad you ask, the Register does not provide you any link, instead they falsely suggest "Starts 3D 'For Sale' sign design." I think it is convenient that they do not let you corroborrate the context of their research and see the definition of sensationalist editorialism.

Two sides to every story!

I have been working at SGI for nearly a year, the company has a history of trouble executing (grumble grumble management) but it has great products and a lot of smart, good, and honorable people.

SGI has a new CEO as of THIS WEEK. See the last paragraph of the quarterly annoucements press release:
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_rel eases/2006/january/q206_results.html

Many companies would like to have the revenue and people resources SGI has. While the company continues to decline, it is easy to be a pessimist. But I am there helping change things for the better, it is an incredible opportunity and a good work environment. How many places can claim this even when the company is healthy?

Thanks for listening to my positive rant to set the record straight. I dislike journalism leading the sheep to false conclusions.

They're not going to give you the shares; you just qualify to buy them at the IPO price. Otherwise you'd probably have to have a connection at the banks who administer the IPO. IPO shares are not usually sold to just anyone.

Look at
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1272830/000 104746906001567/a2167036zs-1.htm
and search for "directed share".

Vonage IPO Propectus:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1272830/000 104746906001567/a2167036zs-1.htm

Just yesterday I was officially informed of this. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1302977/000 110465906006216/a06-4351_1ex99d1.htm I guess I should ask what script to use to keep my posted resumes "up-to-the-minute" and to edit them on the fly to include the buzzwords they want.

A thousand bucks? That'll get you like TWO SHARES ...
I don't know if you could even get someone to part with just two shares. While it's not always the case, most shares are sold in lots, and a common lot size is a multiple of 100...Expensive shares like Google will definately have more exceptions, but I still doubt you will be able to buy only a $1000 worth of Google.
In fact ...(where's the damn article when you need it?) the high share price is apparently part of Google's strategy. By keeping a higher share price they limit the number of little investors, leaving more shares in the hands of big institutions who are less likely to buy+sell a lot, which in turn leads to a more stable stock price...
Most companies "manipulate" their stock price by splitting when it's too high, and do a reverse split (not so common as it's not always seen as a positive sign for the company) when they want to increase the price of the shares. They do this to attract certain levels of investors.

A thousand bucks? That'll get you like TWO SHARES ...
I don't know if you could even get someone to part with just two shares. While it's not always the case, most shares are sold in lots, and a common lot size is a multiple of 100...Expensive shares like Google will definately have more exceptions, but I still doubt you will be able to buy only a $1000 worth of Google.
In fact ...(where's the damn article when you need it?) the high share price is apparently part of Google's strategy. By keeping a higher share price they limit the number of little investors, leaving more shares in the hands of big institutions who are less likely to buy+sell a lot, which in turn leads to a more stable stock price...
Most companies "manipulate" their stock price by splitting when it's too high, and do a reverse split (not so common as it's not always seen as a positive sign for the company) when they want to increase the price of the shares. They do this to attract certain levels of investors.

From a purely business point of view, what Google is doing is not right.

They are censoring their results so that they can gain access to a large market, and potentially profit from this.

From Google's SEC Form S-1 Registration Form; ( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000 119312504073639/ds1.htm )

"Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, " ...
"We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

I'm not sure how, acting as professional businessmen, they are living up to these statements by censoring their results.

Google has dual class stock. Class A gets 1 vote per share, Class B gets 10. Google execs held on to all of the Class B shares, so they retain voting control of the company. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000 119312504142742/ds1a.htm

Actually, 'Don't Be Evil' is firmly ingrained in as part of Google's business model. It's explicitly stated in their SEC Filing (top of page vi). Of course, this leaves open wide interpretation of how to qualify 'evil', but I'm pretty sure the shareholders can't simply bypass it entirely. That is, it's very slightly more than just an informal motto.

Amazon currently carries about $1.5 billion in debt, down from $1.85 billion at the end of FY'04, where the decrease was achieved by redeeming some of their 6.875% bonds in Q1'05. (Warning, download is about 1 MB.)

Take-Two does have a history of questionable accounting practices ...

Could you be a little more specific?

Well, if you want to talk the best of the best, Infinium Labs is one. Thinking of the great stuff that's come out of there it's a good thing they've got the power of a Dell!

BTW: Has anyone else looked at their stock price? Holy crap... if they ever really did release something besides hype you might make a chunk of change. You can all laugh, but when they release the Phantom with Duke Nukem Forever as a launch title I'll be rolling in the dough while all of Slashdot tries to think of replacement vaporware to fill the sudden void.

PS: Can anyone here decipher their SEC filings to get an idea of how much money they are making/spending? The form I normally look for are not present (the 10-K annual filing), though I do see a number of "Notification of inability to timely file" entries.

SCO is suing about the copyrights, which they admit are owned by Novell, and weren't even part of the deal?

SCO is hoping to use this vague wording to override the clear wording of the original contract. They're claiming that the conditional clause has been met and that all the copyrights should be transferred. Novell is going to argue that SCO doesn't need the copyright to exercise their rights "with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies". No doubt they're going to ask what technologies SCO is seeking to acquire and why they'd need the copyrights to do so. It's going to be up to the courts to decide this one.

I don't see how this can be read the way SCO wants to read it. SCO doesn't want the copyrights to acquire UNIX technology (which they did a decade ago); they want the copyrights to sue Linux users. This clause was put in so SCO could co-develop Monterey with IBM, so the historical context doesn't help SCO out either.

If IBM or Novell (or some trust composed of several heavy hitters) completely bought SCO out, all of this legal crap would go away. It's not too far-fetched, either. We could even see SCO's copyrighted UNIX code released under the GPL ... in the event that we actually wanted it ;-)

Maybe my suggestion is a year or two early; at the rate SCO is shrinking, its value will soon drop below the cost of defending its claims in court.

To compare to your house analogy, when you compute your net worth, you add the value of the house and subtract the amount of the mortgage.

Ah, but I have positive cash flow. Which means I have some cash to pay off my debts.

What you're thinking about would be the balance sheet. Im no Chartered Accountant, but it does seem to mention "Net Tangible Assets ($567,700)" (that's a negative number), as well as a ludicrously high amount of goodwill. Now, the goodwill was listed a lot higher in 2002, which looks to me like they're writing it off - probably at the behest of their creditors. That means that in their own eyes, the company's value (or, the parts of the company they bought prior to 2002) is diminishing.

Their quarterly report is fun reading. Notice how they're paying 7% interest on their debt.

On the up side, their stock hasn't been this low for ages, and they're estimates for next year show a profit. But.. That may just be wishful thinking. Seeing as how BBI is hardly a company racking up debt to do really innovative investments, you're probably better off investing in a company that is (or one that isn't investing as much as actually turning a profit year-on-year).

The titantic that is software arm of IBM is sinking.

Hmm...I'm not quite sure how you'd decide that. According to IBM's latest 10-Q report, in the quarter ending 30 Sept. 2005, their software division had revenues of a little over 3.8 billion US dollars, and costs of 483 million US dollars. By contrast, their hardware division had revenues of 5.12 billion dollars, but costs of 3.2 billion dollars. IOW, they're showing a gross quarterly profit of about 3.3 billion dollars from software, and only about 1.9 billion from hardware. Looked at on a percentage basis, software looks even better for them: it constitutes almost 18% of their revenues, but only about 3% of their costs.

Their highest revenue division is services -- but even with the largest revenues, this still has slightly lower profits than their software (about 300 million less per quarter than software).

As far as sinking goes: their revenue from software is up about 200 million dollars per quarter from a year ago, while their costs are up only about 20 million dollars a quarter. IOW, their total sales are growing, and they're getting better profit margins too!

Just for comparison, Microsoft's latest 10-Q [warning: Word format, of course] shows they have about 9.6 billion in quarterly revenues (total) and costs of about 6.3 billion, for a gross profit of a bit under 2.6 billion. IOW, IBM's software division produces more profit than Microsoft!

In fairness, that comparison probably isn't entirely accurate: in Microsoft's case, it's taking essentially all expenses into account, including things like R&D (1.5 billion dollars a quarter!) which probably aren't accounted for on a divisional basis at IBM (though I didn't dig through things enough to be sure about that).

However, there's other bad stuff. "GTX Global" is traded in the Pink Sheets. And they claim to have made these SEC filings. But those filings aren't showing up in the SEC database.

Looking at what they claim is their balance sheet, all the activity seems to center around Dish TV type operations.

When you check both sides of the story, the company owns 1,000,000 acres of Canadian forest land (in the business overview section), and per your site clear cut 27,000 acres last year. They further claim to running on an over 40 year [implying 40-45 year]long rotation growing cycle (in the Timberlands section). Both claims seem to fit 27,000 acres is just over 1/40th of 1,000,000. That sounds an awful lot like a farm to me, but perhaps the longer crop growing cycle makes it something else. They also mention that hardwood logs are sold to veneer manufacturers they are far too valuable to be used in pulp (except the scraps). If someone has an issue with their farming practices on their own land there are dealers making a market in the company daily.

They did it for an intangible, yet valuable, thing called goodwill. Google had $122 million of it as of the end of 2004. (See note 6 to the financials in Google's 2004 annual report) Sounds like a good reason to me. :)

Yes. It does. You need to make one important change. Remove the buzzphrase (IP) "multi-level marketing", making the first sentence of the second paragraph: "The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate program."

That applies to advertising on computers.

pwnd. 'tard.

Are you kidding? This is the worst vaporware announcement I have ever seen. They can't even keep their webservers up. If some no-name startup can come out of nowhere and build what is described as 10 times more complete and complicated than anything I have ever seen before, I tend to think it is complete bullshit.

If things like this exist, they dont magically ship completely formed. You hear about them for a while and then they slowly add features and scale up. From what I can tell from the google cache, there is not a single reputable technology person in the company, only a nobody CEO.

According to his bio, he was previously a director at "RxRemedy" which apparently no longer exists. In fact that company was under investigation by the SEC according to a simple google search. Here is a link to the SEC investigation into the company that my google search for RxRemedy turned up: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp17650 .htm (in the document, search for RxRemedy) So let's see, his only listed previous company was investigated for investor fraud.

What a freaking joke. This man probably belongs in prison.

I am amazed that slashdot would put vaporware garbage like this on their front page.

Ok, so I lied -- I found the Fiscal Year 2004 balance sheets, instead of Google's most recent quarterly report. which you can find here. Google does have 7.1 billion in cash and marketable securities. 10 or 20 or even 30 million is rounding Error. Unless every man, woman, and child on the planet decides to download Firefox, Google is fine here.

The suggestion that Google might not be able to "pay for all those downloads" is absolutely rediculous. If there are 10 million Firefox downloads, and Google is paying $1 each, that's basically little more than a rounding error in Google's financial statements. You can check them out at the SEC if you don't believe me. Those numbers are in thousands. As in, Google has cash or marketable securities in the area of 2.1 billion dollars. 10 million is practically rounding error. Google's balance sheet is here: at the SEC

You've just got a hole in your head if you think Gates is doing this to make money from "Big Pharma". Lets assume (contrary to fact, which you can verify by a quick trip to the SEC, which will tell you major shareholders of publicly traded companies) that Bill Gates owns 10% of the entirety of the pharmaceutical industry. Lot, stock, and barrel, a dime out of every dollar of profit goes to him. Lets further assume, contrary to fact, that Big Pharma just makes money. And lets assume, contrary to fact, that these grants are actually going 100% to purchase drugs , e.g., do R&D on environmentally friendly pesticides (See here). All of this means that Bill Gates gets back a dime on every dollar he spends. Wow, thats how you become worth $80 billion or whatever it is -- you farm out a couple hundred million a year and get back a couple ten million -- but don't worry, you can make up the difference on volume.

Incidentally, you can see the Foundation's holdings at the SEC. Its a fairly standard portfolio heavy on the blue chips, including a lot of medical stock -- but not enough to either make a drop in the bucket next to either these folks' market capitalizations or Bill Gates' personal wealth (the vast majority of which, by the way, is MSFT stock).

For the curious, http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=TGTL&o wner=include&action=getcompany.

No, I'm not missing the point. But thanks for guessing about me.

Of all the many places I've worked -- including a Big Six consulting firm, manufacturing, systems integrators, and IBM -- IBM is head and shoulders above the others in terms of the way it treats it people.

Does that mean that IBM can offer lifetime employment? Nope, it tried that and almost went broke a bit more than a decade ago.

Does it mean that IBM can insulate anyone from the reality you point out -- that people of equal capability are available overseas for lower cost? No. Everywhere from the shelves of Wal-Mart to the board room, the people who buy want the greatest value for their transaction without regard to the nations providing resources or labor. Even the DoD doesn't even sound the call to "Buy American" anymore.

And huge chunks of IBM's business are extremely sensitive to the cost of labor. That's why IBM is working to move its services capability farther up the food chain, so it can differentiate on value, not price. That's why it's accepting the commoditization of parts of its product portfolio, and why it's embraced open source.

IBM executives know that in order to grow, they need to find new ways to bring value to customers. That requires investment. In turn, that requires profitable operations. Which leads to controlling costs and expenses, and managing the portfolio of businesses that IBM operates.

Is the services business hard? Yes. That's why Big 8^h6^h5^h4 firms tend to have an up-or-out mentality. You hire young folks who are willing to bill 2000+ hours a year and live in hotels, and some of them claw their way into a partnership and big bucks. Others leave. The same is true for law firms.

Have you ever worked for a defense contractor, and shown up on the Monday following contract termination due to budget cuts? Tammy Wynette would spell it L-A-Y-O-F-F-S.

I'm sorry, but IBM puts far more than lip service into being a good corporate citizen in the community, the U.S., and world. But it's still a _corporate_ citizen, not philanthropist.

Do the top execs get paid well? Yes. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/51143/00011 0465905009753/a05-4087_2def14a.htm#ReportOnExecuti veCompensation_162410

But are they strip-mining the company to line their own pockets? No. In fact, executive compensation is tied to performance, which is shown in the split between salary and bonus. You can make arguments about the overall evil of executive compensation, but the numbers there aren't out-of-line for a profitable $90-billion business.

Unlike most places, IBM's stock option program is premium priced (e.g. the options are granted at 10% above the market price, meaning the price has to increase more than 10% for the execs to make a dime); most firms grant options at-the-money.

In fact, IBM requires its top executives to own stock (not options) worth 3-7x their annual base salary (13x for Sam), to tie their success to IBM's sustained growth.

But how does one go about actually disbanding, oulawing or disintegrating an association like the RIAA?

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987. htm

K.

Google is in no way shape or form a Microsoft company. Microsoft is a solid company that makes software, hardware, and a crap-ton of other things. They are not a "one really whizbang product" kind of company.

Yeah, many people have thought that the skycar has been an investment scam, and it probably is. Hey the SEC thinks so!

Although I see that Bernoulli's principle strikes again! Alas, that is not really what generates lift (my modern Physics professor in college used to teach at the Air Force Academy and said they still teach that to pilots... ghastly). While there is a Bernoulli effect that influences lift, there is an assumption and crude explanation (hey the air flows above and below the wing have to meet up).

Many readers new to this topic may be looking for the explanation that is commonly put forward in many mainstream books, and even scientific exhibitions, that touch on flight and aerodynamic principles; namely, that due to the greater curvature (and hence longer path) of the upper surface of an aerofoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to "catch up" with the air flowing around the bottom (and hence due to its faster speed its pressure is lower, etc). Despite the fact that this "explanation" is probably the most common of all, it must be made clear that it is utterly false.

Of course Bernoulli was a natural philosopher which explains why this was easily accepted (thanks Neal Stephenson, for fictionalizing that part of history).

Scientific arguments aside, the Moller sky car graced the pages of Popular Mechanics and Popular Science when I was a kid. No one in their right mind would buy it, it is a silly impractical (not to mention unsafe) idea. Do you know how much work it takes to get a pilot's license? Or instrument rated? Time and $$$$. That is why it is a dumb idea. But hey, rich old men can dream, can't they?

IANAA (I am not an accountant) but...

A quick peek at Intel's recent 10Q SEC filing tells us that they spent about $15B on "cost of sales" in the last year. That is close to half of net revenue. "Cost of sales" are expenses directly related to production. That includes only expensable items that go into making things (silicon, electricity, salary, Intel Inside stickers, etc.) It does not include capital investment (really, really clean buildings with fancy ovens & stuff in them) or R&D or marketing or general & administrative expenses.

Now, assuming that the money that Intel spends on things unrelated to chip manufacturing is a relatively small share of total expenses... If the $40 figure is a true average, then Intel made about 350M chips in the last year. Worldwide, there were about 50 million PCs shipped in the last quarter. Round that off to 200M for the year. If Intel made 350M chips, then some of them were probably something other than CPUs.

What's Intel's market share? Something like 80%? It's a little higher in notebook PCs, but still they shouldn't have been making more than 160M CPUs in the last 12 months. Ignoring all the other stuff Intel makes, that's closer to $100 per chip, on average.

In any case, averaging across all chip production would severely underestimate the marginal cost for a chip like a Pentium 4. And if the $40 figure really does apply to Pentium 4s, then there's a large chunk of the company's expenses unexplained by CPU production. Those integrated video chips they put on cheap PC motherboards must be tough to make! Or could the cost of making CPUs really represent only 40% of Intel's expenses? ($40 x 160M)/$15B = 43%

Bottom line: you'd have to know an awful lot about the innards of Intel to correctly allocate costs across all the stuff they make. I don't know how you could have confidence in any number an outsider calculated for average cost-per-chip.

Intel's R&D expenses, by the way, are about 30% of their 'cost of sales' expenses--somewhere in the neighborhood of $5B in the last year. That is, about $1 for each $6 or $7 of net revenue goes to R&D.

FYI, here's Intel's latest 10Q: http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000 119312505159285/d10q.htm

Here's the form filed with the SEC: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193 12505170553/ds3.htm

No, I'm sorry but I don't think that 80 meg .pdf's of current regulations are actually "available" through dialup.

What 80 meg reg? How about Truth in Lending (TIL) - a law and regulations that every U.S. citizen has as a means to limit 3rd party control over their financial destiny?http://www.ftc.gov/

Or, how about the 10K & 8Q filings with the SEC? Want to know who is in charge of your least favorite business - or, who has insider information? Try http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml/ and see if you can learn anything of significance over a 56k connection.

According to the latest 10k, VMware makes up approximately $200 million of EMC's $8 billion revenue. Point is that it is not probably not as important to EMC as some of its other products.

Could you outline what you mean, in more detail, in relation to their press release and earlier filings?

As a previous poster pointed out, this sounds a lot like VMSK - a well debunked modulation scam.

Here's another: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr15898. htm

"Never give a sucker an even break." (W.C. Fields)

Transmeta's public accounting firm resigned recently as well:
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001193/0 00089161805000476/f10542e8vk.htm

This doesn't happen to growing companies.

Probably this is just a trick by a Merrill Lynch publicist, who found a way to get free publicity. Or, maybe it is a way to distract people from some fraud involving the Taiwanese firm and Merrill Lynch.

Otherwise the story just doesn't make sense. To believe the story, Fubon cuts loss to NT$50 mil. in NT$8 bil. mistake, as it was written, you have to believe that the Taiwan firm hires inexperienced people, gives them little training, and does not review their large trades.

Do you really believe that a low-level employee spent a quarter billion dollars because of a keystroke error? In any case, the people who should know don't believe the story. Shares of "Fubon Securities' parent firm Fubon Financial Holding rose by 0.47%".

According to the U.S. government's SEC department, corruption of the media is not the only corruption from Merrill Lynch: SEC Charges Merrill Lynch, Four Merrill Lynch Executives with Aiding and Abetting Enron Accounting Fraud.

The U.S. government's Justice Department says, Three Top Former Merrill Lynch Executives Charged With Conspiracy, Obstruction Of Justice, Perjury In Enron Investigation.

There is general agreement that there has been no serious change in the U.S. government and big corporations like Merrill Lynch and Citibank. Apparently the only change is that they will be more careful in the future when they engage in deceptive practices. For an example of what has been written about this, see Iraq Could Produce Another Enron, by Nomi Prins. Ms. Prins wrote an excellent book about corporate and government corruption in the U.S., Other People's Money. At Powell's: Other People's Money.

Apparently most of what is written about the financial markets is fradulent in some way. Generally it fits into the category of "What we want you to think so that we can make more money". Employees and investors in the U.S. have lost billions of dollars due to fraud in the last few years.

The corruption is extremely widespread. Here are short reviews of 35 books and 3 movies about conflict of interest in the U.S. government: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. (To those who think there is little or no corruption: If you can't give any example of a book or article you have read that supports your view, please consider not commenting this time.)

Let's not forget that they are a corporation with a charter from the State of Delaware, oh wait...

It's all just talk, huh? Press Release here.

That's funny, the last time I checked it was nowhere near 30 years. You seem to have a comma error; it is more like 3 years than 30.

"It's Google Inc. now eh?

I'm not sure why you're modded as funny, but I feel that you're misinformed. They have been Google, Inc..

The numbers
Check note 7.

In summary: Last quarter, AOL made 324 million dollars in operating income last quarter. That's only 18% of TW's 1,779 million operating income.

Anyone know an internet translator that supports Norwegian? Or even a Norwegian? It would be nice to have a translation so we don't have to sit around making uninformed comments about what we can't understand...

I think "Jeg vil rette en advarsel til alle dere som skal ut å handle kontrollere etter dette. Sjekk_nøye_om kontrolleren er støttet av kjernen! " speaks for itself.
--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty [sec.gov]

• We do not have a history of profitable operations.
• We may not prevail in our SCO Litigation, which may adversely affect our business.
• Our failure to timely file this Form 10-K, and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 (as previously defined, the "Form 10-Q"), could result in the delisting of our common stock on The Nasdaq SmallCap Market.
• Our Engagement Agreement with the Law Firms will require us to spend a significant amount of cash during fiscal year 2005 and could harm our liquidity position.
• Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
• We may lose the support of industry partners leading to an accelerated decline in our UNIX products and services revenue.
• Our claims relating to our UNIX intellectual property may subject us to additional legal proceedings.
• Fluctuations in our operating results or the failure of our operating results to meet the expectations of public market analysts and investors may negatively impact our stock price.
• We operate in a highly competitive market and face significant competition from a variety of current and potential sources; many of our current and potential competitors have greater financial and technical resources than we do; thus, we may fail to compete effectively.
• If the market for UNIX continues to contract, our business will be harmed.
• We rely on our indirect sales channel for distribution of our products, and any disruption of our channel at any level could adversely affect the sales of our products.
• Our Engagement Agreement with the Law Firms representing us to enforce our intellectual property rights may reduce our ability to raise additional financing.
• Our foreign-based operations and sales create special problems, including the imposition of governmental controls and taxes and fluctuations in currency exchange rates that could hurt our results.
• If we are unable to retain key personnel in an intensely competitive environment, our operations could be adversely affected.
• We have issued shares and options under our Equity Compensation Plans that were not exempt from registration or qualification under federal and state securities laws, and, as a result, we may incur liability to repurchase such shares and options and may face additional potential claims under federal and state securities laws.
• Our stock price is volatile.
• There are risks associated with the potential exercise of our outstanding options.
• The resale of common shares by BayStar may have an adverse impact on the market value of our stock and the existing holders of our common stock.
• Our stock price could decline further because of the activities of short sellers.
• The right of our board of directors to authorize additional shares of preferred stock could adversely impact the rights of holders of our common stock.
• Our Stockholder Rights Plan could make it more difficult for a hostile bid for the Company or a change of control transaction to succeed at current market prices for our stock.

FYI, the full text of the risk that Groklaw is quoting from:

Our claims relating to our UNIX intellectual property may subject us to additional legal proceedings.

In August 2003, Red Hat brought a lawsuit against us asserting that the Linux operating system does not infringe on our UNIX intellectual property rights and seeking a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of copyrights and no misappropriation of trade secrets. In addition, Red Hat claims we have engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, decept

SCO's management claimed that the stock sales (which you can find on their Form 4 filings with the SEC) were part of a pre-arranged sale plan that had absolutely nothing to do with the litigation. The sale plan was filed two months before the lawsuit was filed. That sure seems plausible to me.

I really hope someone nails these slimeballs.

(P.S. I've posted several notes on /. about this; here's one from back in June 2003.)