Slashdot Mirror
SCO Execs Dumping Stock
luigi6699 writes "According to the Salt Lake Tribune, 'SCO Group executives have sold about 119,000 shares of their company since it filed a lawsuit against IBM in March...' Their CFO started the $1.2 million sell-off just after the lawsuit."
Like we were suprised at this?
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
And in other news...
SCO Group to Shoot Babies
By Jeff Heard
Lindon, UT - The SCO Group announced the launch of a campaign to shoot 1% of all babies born in the US.
"Statistically, 1% of all people are Linux users. Rather than have these young hoodlums grow up without any respect for our intellectual property, we have chosen to nip it in the bud, as it were," said SCO's CEO, Darl McBride.
In addition, during the campaign announcement, SCO said that individuals could pay $2,499 per child for immunity from execution. "The price goes up to $5,200 dollars after that family's firstborn reaches 18 months, so it is in their advantage to pony up now," McBride continued.
The announcement brought cheers from SCO's chief investors and supporters, including the Gartner Group, and the BSA (Blind and Shortsighted Alliance). The organizations hailed it as "A brave, innovative step in the fight against intellectual piracy."
An RIAA spokesperson that was also present said that they were taking serious looks at SCO's proposal for fighting piracy in the music industry. "I think this will be a great deterrent. It will force parents to talk to their kids about the evils of intellectual piracy. In a free economy, this kind of thing is a must."
SCO, which stands for "Satanic Cultists' Operation," changed its name from Caldera in 2002, when it was acquired by an obscure organization which exclusively employs 1200-year-old undead trial lawyers. They are now embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with IBM, Red Hat, and the Open Source community over alleged copyright infringements embedded inside Linux.
Speculation has been abound about what will happen if SCO wins the lawsuit. Some have suggested that Linux will disappear entirely from the market. Others have speculated that if SCO loses the lawsuit, it will use its connections with the Underworld to assemble a massive Army of the Dead, march on IBM headquarters, and crush it into a smoldering oblivion. When asked about the possibility of an undead Armageddon scenario, a senior IBM spokesperson said, speaking in stereophonic bass-tones, "This will not happen."
When booed during the announcement by a large rotten tomato-wielding crowd, McBride exhorted, "I am disappointed with your reaction to our announcement. I must say that your decision to throw tomatoes does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of your firstborn children."
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Maybe the mainstream media is finally going to get a peek at what we've been talking about for months!
it's a new, but not suprising meaning to "take a wicked dump."
I took a dump yesterday too!
And the contents of my toilet had many similarities to SCO stock!
One really has to wonder - this is SO blatent, why is the SEC not in this up to their necks?
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
This is a benevolent decision, folks. They want to share the wealth with the rest of the world who buys those shares when their stock price skyrockets. You know, after they prove their claims.
What? It could happen!
against setting company policy solely so you can cash in your stock for a good price and screw the rest of the stockholders who don't know better?
I want to see all their new shareholders (due to them thinking the lawsuit was real and buying more) shit themselves when the price plummets :-)
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
they found out that the monopoly money we were all sending to them is not worth anything :)
Well, this should go down as one of the most obivous scams that has happened on wall street since enron and martha..
*sigh*
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Yahoo 5 day chart: Can you spend a trend?
The SEC should really look into this. The lawsuit is totally bogus. SCO is definetely not acting in the best interests of its shareholders. SCO seems to be acting in the best interests of Microsoft. It is very curious how Microsoft and SCO reached some kind of licensing agreement in the context of this lawsuit. It is also curious how SCO claims that a single company purchased one of their bogus licenses without disclosing the name. There needs to be full disclosure about the relationship between SCO and Microsoft.
For this kind of investor fraud, and for extortion, SCO executives should be charged as criminals. Here is an excellent Advogato article summarizing how and more of why.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Uhh yea, its public knowledge. I been spouting off here for a while about that. Also you should see all the gloom and doom in their quarterly report. Nobody can accuse them of anything illegal as they are doing everything in the open...
We know they do not expect to win...
Matthew 6:21
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Pass a law making corporate execs unable to sell their shares when their company is taking part in nonsense suits like this! Captain should go down with the ship, RIGHT?!?!?!?!?
"Like rats from a sinking ship, these are the days of our lives
-kgj
They're involved in huge legal battles with two (maybe more) computer superpowers. The entire user base that supports them hates them. And there's now a free version available of everything they sell.
I wonder why they're selling their stock?
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
If this insider selling continues as an IBM vs. SCO trial were to draw closer, that would mean that SCOs own top brass don't think they much of a chance. Of course of SCO winds up going under, those same top brass will probably have questions asked of them for why they sold before IBM destroyed them (if it happens that way).
Benifit of the doubt though, insider selling does happen in companies to take profit, and if you look at SCO's 1 year preformance going from 95 cents to 16 dollars at it's recent peak (an increase of nearly 1,700%), you would see why it would seem intelligent to sell.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
1) no evidence
2) asking for payment (extortion)
3) stock prices++
4) stock selling
Even she thinks something fishy is going on.
At least point at the source:
/. we hate BBSpot. It's only on Fark that we love Brian.
SCO Group to Shoot Babies
And haven't you heard? On
tbdean
Here's the link for those that want to see the complete rundown of insiders over the past little while at SCO...
Platform independent bug tracking software
SCO management knew that their stock was going to rise sharply in value and most of all that, given their righteousness, it would retain its (then) future peak value. Being the friendly people they are, they decided that everyone out there should have an opportunity to make a small profit on the back of that ugly monopolist called IBM. So they decided to increase their karma by throwing some of their undervalued stock onto the market for us all to buy and benefit from.
Linux user since early January 1992.
...this isn't just insider trading: it's fraud pure and simple, and thus should be punished.
The difference between the two in my eyes is that insider trading charges can target people who have no control over the company's action. Case in point: Martha Stewart, who might have known that the stock was going to drop, but had no control over whether it did or not. Punishing someone for selling because of what they thought seems like an egregious violation of privacy and civil rights AND is incredibly hard to prove; but punishing someone for selling because they engage in the systematic dissemination of disinformation related to the enterprise for the express purpose of increasing their payout at the expense of other stockholders is perfectly justifiable. That, my friends, is fraud.
[ home ]
With the selloff starting 4 days after the lawsuit was filed and SCO VP Michael Wilson selling his entire stake in the company? I'd say a few SCO execs are likely to get a call from our friends at the SEC, and they ain't gonna be talking about whether or not Tennessee's going to a bowl game this year.
"The company will comment on the sales when it announces fiscal third-quarter results Thursday, he said."
If the results are bad, wouldn't it be insider trading? If they are good, why sell?
I'm outside his circle of friends, not white, pear shaped OR stinky (my wife would kill me) and I found it rather humorous. It wasn't about shooting babies, but rather compared SCO's current practices to something also pretty tasteless. Now -- I'm not a dad yet but my wife is 5 month pregnant and I'm WAY excited about being a dad so maybe your perspective is different than mine, but I think that I'd even find it somewhat funny after my son is born. Notice: I am not questioning your right to be offended, but just take this in context.
There, I said it. Sure linux marches on and the company will be pounded by big blue--but they, by which I mean the owners, get the cash for the FUD and run off. Legal liability is borne by SCO, which files for bankruptcy protection.
There's a lot of gloating here today, but I think that the SCO execs got what they wanted, the lawyers got rich, and everyone else would have benifited from this never happening in the first place.
gg.
I believe they sold 1 or 2 copies of UnixWare in the past 10 years. Oh, they sold a Linuxlicense too.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
From the R'ing The FA department:
David Boies' law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, represents SCO. Boies represented former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election recount and tried the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft.
Wow. Now if that isn't a stellar assortment of huge wins! I'm sure President Gore, who was so helpful in pursuing the now-completed Microsoft breakup, will be happy that his old friend is ensuring that SCO gets what they deserve for their valuable contributions to Linux.
(Although, ironically, SCO may indeed get just what they deserve...)
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
If I go and buy a share or two of SCOX from one of the many rats fleeing their sinking ship, could I claim that my Linux installs would then be non-infringing since I would be a part owner of the company which "owns" the IP my 2.4.x kernel is supposedly copied from?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Bill Gates Sold 1 Million More Microsoft Common Shares Friday ;-)
I guess he releaiszed MSFT's days are numbered
SCO not exactly "loveable" ???
Check out this additional story about SCO at the Salt Lake Tribune website.
that the company that bought their license yesterday is a little nervous right now.
What is that Fortune 500 company smoking?
And all this time I was under the impression that the execs thought they were the Czars of Soviet Russia. I guess I was mistaken.
Specifically, it doesn't mention the time period over which the sales took place. There is a relatively limited window of time during which "insiders" can sell stock. Generally, it's in the middle of financial quarters and definitely closes well before the quarter's beginning or end.
Although the article doesn't flat-out say it, it sort of implies that the execs selling stock have been doing it recently. Given the extraordinarily high level of scrutiny to insider trading abuses in publicly traded companies, I would be very surprised if the SCO insiders were anything other than legally scrupulous in their stock sales, particularly in the midst of litigation.
You may not agree with their position regarding Linux...no, let me rephrase that...you probably think that they are beneath contempt because of their position regarding Linux, but there's nothing unlawful or particularly unethical about realizing that your stock price is outrageously high, you're in an insider trading window and it's almost time for the new model-year Lexus introductions!
I think they deserve our scorn for playing fast and loose with the GPL and the Community in general, but I doubt they've broken any laws in this instance.
-h-
5) profit!
If I recall correctly (no pun intended since I live in California), the SEC nailed several Nvidia employees over insider trading regarding selling their options after Microsoft announced Nvidia had won the contract for the important chips in the Xbox. Considering SCO's behavior is far more blatent (and from the top of the corporate pyramid versus a few peons) than Nvidia's, I would bet money the SEC will throw the book at them [SCO]. I'd also bet on it since so many high tech companies have historically been the allies of the Republican Party (unlike Apple Computer), crucial for getting the Administration to act on anything (or not to act as in Microsoft)... Finally, since the Defense Department seems so gung-ho on Linux for security purposes these days, I don't think Uncle Sam is going to be happy shelling out $699+ per CPU just so SCO can make a profit off someone else's intellectual property especially when the OS is supposed to be free...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I find the article's most interesting point being that
Among the many bizarre things about the complaint, though, is that SCO itself used to be a Linux company called Caldera, and as such eagerly distributed free of charge the very same software it now is claiming infringes its copyrights.
A new CEO came up with the business strategy in the fall. But a new plan doesn't immunize the company from the precedents it helped set. It's as if a magician gave away his secrets, then started suing his audience for learning how he did his tricks.
Let's be honest here, at the moment, is this entirely legal? Maybe...
At the moment, SCO's executives are profiting from allegation/conjecture/slander; there is also a clear correlation between the release of "news" and share movement. In the end, if IBM and RH et al. prove their claims, and to a degree the extent of the victory, the SCO executive will have a lot to answer for. This is not simply in the realms of a slap on the wrist or a demotion, but substantial fines and quite possibly time in a federal prison.
It's by no coincidence that soon after the FUD came flying from Utah, did SCO decide to Indemnify its executives for their actions. IBM has, in it's counter claim, made some very serious accusations concerning market manipulation; they would not release such material if they though for one minute that it rebound on them.
This has gone past the point of being a Microsoft vs Linux slagging match, this is serious. People are going to go "away" for it; families will live in the knowledge that their husbands/fathers are the worst lying thieves this country has to offer. So pick up some popcorn and watch, its only going to get better!
I think this may be getting blown out of proportion ... in a previous post, i reported that their insider activity was spread around 5 execs from SCO ... i'm not sure where the 119,000 share number comes from either ... unless you're mis-calculating Form144 & Form4Option into the mix.
... and a Form4 Option is an exercise of options at a pre-determined stock price. These forms are usually, but not always, closely followed by Form4 Sells.
...
... and certainly some execs have made a some money on the over-inflated price ... but this level of paranoia just makes /. look bad.
For the record, a Form144 is not a sell, but simply an insider registration of stock previously unknown to the public float
By my calcs, the execs have cashed out for a total of 75k shares worth <$900k between the 5 of them. Not exactly the criminal mastermind plot the article made it out to be
There is a lot to bash SCO about nowdays
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
SCOX Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two months
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
I know this is hot-button issue with the crap that SCO is spewing out, but I have a few questions before I jump to the guilty verdict. At what point is this action criminal? 1 share? 10 shares? 10,000 shares? One guy sold 17,151 shares leaving him 228,043 that he still owns. Another sold everything (12,000 shares). There are 13.7 million shares outstanding. Do percentages factor into the determination of criminality? Does anyone have an EDUCATED and FACTUAL opinion to offer? I have to say, this certainly looks suspocious. And, if their actions are criminal, I hope they get the just desserts.
JP
The facts expressed here belong to all, the opinions to me. The distinction between fact and opinion is yours to decide.
If you read the article to its end and clicked the right-arrow at the bottom you get this article:
SCO not exactly the lovable little guy
I think it's pretty hilarious that SCO can't even get their local press to show them in a good light.
There's two ways of looking at it. The more jaded among us might point our fingers at insider trading, and the use of the lawsuit to pump up the stock price before bailing.
Then again, Wilson and the others (most of whom I've never seen interviewed in a Linux/IBM/SCO lawsuit-related article) might be part of the Caldera old-guard who believe that the lawsuit is stupid, baseless, or suicidal and are using this opportune time to pull out of an investment that they believe is doomed to fail.
"My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
I'd take a look at the trend in this linear SCOX Chart for better information.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Yahoo's 2-year chart, and the six-month chart. Cute how the stock goes nowhere until the company starts crying for a buyout, and if you cross-reference with the insider trades page I linked in the other post, you'll note that nothing takes place until after the lawsuit is filed and the stock starts leaping. Curious, that. Expected behaviour, perhaps, but given the exaggerated nature of SCO's anti-Linux campaign and the fact that the company hasn't actually tried to produce anything since Project Monterrey fell through, the rather ambitious automatic sale targets set by the execs sure make me wonder whether the execs can honestly say this is not a pump-and-dump operation. The fact that SCO's stock flirted with penny-stock status for about a year, combined with no output beyond a lawsuit and legal threats, would seem to reinforce that impression.
Based on the noticeable downturn in recent weeks, I'd lay good money that SCO's about to issue another Comical Ali-esque press release.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The controversy here is not SCO or Linux; it is IBM. It is IBM and the threat IBM poses to Microsoft. Microsoft is scared of Linux and open source, but the latter only became a threat when IBM began to push them. IBM and Microsoft go a long way back, and the dissolution of their partnership in the beginning of the 1990's was less than amicable according to at least one regretful Steve Ballmer.
Microsoft and SCO go a long way back too. Microsoft originally bought a Unix source code license so they could commission SCO to write PC Xenix for them. Microsoft long regarded SCO as a threat, but this was unrealistic, and it is possible the two companies have now made amends.
For wouldn't it be ironic if Bill Gates were behind the whole SCO debacle? I am not saying it is probable, only that it is possible. Knowing the Halloween Documents, knowing Bill Gates, it is easy to see that Microsoft would not stand still and let IBM with Linux walk all over them as is the case today.
Yes, but all of the 13.7 million outstanding shares were not held by the executives.
From further down the article:
Bench (the CFO) has sold 17,151 shares in three separate sales since March 10, reducing his holdings to 228,043 shares, according to the Washington Service and regulatory filings. Vice President Michael Wilson sold his entire stake of 12,000 shares between July 14 and July 18, the Washington Service said...
Also:
Before Bench's sale, SCO insiders had not sold shares in more than a year, according to the Washington Service, a firm that tracks insider transactions.
A suddent >5% sale gets noticed, but nobody can dispute that a 100% sale is significant to say the least. (Imagine if Billy-boy suddenly dumped 5% of his billion+ MS shares?)
My rights don't need management.
From the article: The amount of short interest in the stock rose more than tenfold between May and July, according to Bloomberg data.
It seems that Slashdotters aren't the only ones who've been shorting SCO.
~==>RocketSHE
This entire suit stinks of a stock value manipulation scam. If you look at there history SCOX you can see they have managed to increase the value of the stock from less than a dollar to $15.02 a share at one point. It started dropping again last week when IBM announced the counter-suit. Now they have sold the stock at $10.06 a share. last update reported $9.72. SELL SELL SELL
I hope the SEC is watching this!
Science is the Real TRUTH!
(1) When the Linux crowd proves they aren't using stolen SCO IP, the stock will fall apart, and these guys will face a shareholder's lawsuit and a serious investigation. Expect these guys to get the hell out of the country, fast.
OR:
(2) Linux actually *does* have SCO IP stuck in it, and these execs just want to bail out while the stock is high and before people realize that Linux will survive whether it has to pull some code out or not.
This is so typical it's barely newsworthy. The amount of corruption amoungst upper management and the upper class has reached epidemic proportions and has done more harm to America and Americans than all the terrorists, foreign and domestic, have ever caused.
The affluent are the enemy. The truth is most wealth is transferred not earned and these people have corrupted the system to insure they receive the vast majority of all production even though they contribute little or nothing.
Slavery is alive and well in America. Now it's not just poor "lesser" races, it's just the "lesser" poor.
Oh, and being in the middle class just means you're paid just enough to just get back to work.
Low class simply means there's nothing left to exploit.
Actually, most of the sells were automatic. Ie, a threshold is set and when the stock gets there a certain amount get sold. Its one of the ways execs try to avoid insider trading.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
There is nothing wrong with making money when a company's sock goes up.
However what is illegal is when you use fraud to pump up the level to sell off. You basically have Executive Officers canibalize the company at cost of shareholds so they can make a profit. This isn't what shareholders bought into. This isn't what Execs are supposed to do with companies.
This has always been a weakness in the system. When the CEO sees profit, why operate in a manner that is healthy for the company? The only thing standing in the way is the government who can and will take all of the ill gotten money and throw you in prison.
I'm suprised no one posted this before:
Insider and Form 144 Filings at SCO
This doesn't mean they expect to lose. People sell stock all the time to do things like buy a house or invest elsewhere even if the stock is doing well. They could trying to diversify, anyone smart does so at least to some degree, especially if they have a family.
Yahoo lists 82k insider shares sold in the last 6 months. This is only 1.4 percent of insider holdings. Even if the number is much higher this is not a huge exodus yet. In fact it shows a bit of confidence. After all, this was a $2 stock in January.
This could be taken as SCO's officers hedging their bets, however its hard to say because no matter how lousy SCO's situation might be if it loses, these people may be already diversified well enough with outside holdings to risk it all. It's tough to say is really what this means. The CEO's cash salary was only $82k last year. We all know a CEO can't possibly live on that little. Maybe he needed a Bentley. Hard to say.
Now if they were buying shares, that would say a lot more about the case. People sell for many reasons, but there is only one reason to buy: you think the stock is going to go up and stay up until the next selling period for insiders.
I wonder what the various linux companies are doing?
The very next story in the business section of the SLTrib is also about SCO (click the blue right arrow at the bottom of the original article or click the link below):
8 3192.asp
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08122003/business/
A solution to the problem with music today
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Dear Slashdot Poster, Earlier today it was brought to our attention that an article posted to the Slashdot.com website mentioned that SCO executives were selling off their interests in the company. This letter is to inform you that the terms "SCO" and "SCO Stock" used in conjunction are owned exclusively by SCO and any unauthorized use without proper licensing is a violation of our intellectual property. In a good-faith effort to allow the general public to bring their posts about the SCO Company into licensing compliance, we are offering you the limited opportunity to properly license the terms "SCO" and "SCO Stock" for only $15,000 USD. This fee will not only allow you to use the terms "SCO" and "SCO Stock" but also the more valuable term "SCO Executives" without the need to pay any further licensing fees. It will be in effect until August 15th 2003 after which the fee will increase to $35,000 USD and WILL NOT include the right to use the term "SCO Executives" in your posts. Please contact SCO if you have any additional questions or to purchase a license. We appreciate your compliance with our demands and hope to have a long business relationship with you in the future. Sincerely, SCO(tm) Check out the great Linux PC I'm selling!
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
1) SCO was on a fishing expedition when they conjured up the lawsuit (why just go at IBM and not every single organization currently using Linux?)
2) they're only in it for the money (as opposed to justice/vindication on the subject of their code supposedly stolen)
3) that they know their case is weak and their stock is likely to drop (you don't sell when you're confident in your stock, you might set a stop limit, but selling is a sure sign of no confidence)
In trying to find a bright side (I know this behavior is to be expected on their part, but it is pretty sickening), perhaps this could signal the end of this frivilous case and any concerns about the future of Linux?
Look at SCO VP Wilson did. He bought at very low prices 12,000 shares for $7920 and turned around and sold the shares for about $129,000. That is a nice profit.
2003-07-15 WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President 6,000 Option Exercise at $0.66 per share.
(Cost of $3,960)
2003-07-15 WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President 6,000 Sale at $10.66 - $10.8 per share.
(Proceeds of about $64,000)
2003-07-14 WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President 6,000 Option Exercise at $0.66 per share.
(Cost of $3,960)
2003-07-14 WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President 6,000 Sale at $10.77 - $10.87 per share.
(Proceeds of about $65,000)
WSJ.com - Portals
Nice to see some friendly high profile coverage here. Thanks Lee!
Jared
...Or does anyone else see it as rats leaving a sinking ship?
Begin business plan\
kick sand in the biggest bully's face
try to convince him he should apologize
Try to quietly run like hell while he's getting ready to kick the crap out of you.
End business plan\
Yeah, that'll work.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Well when you stocks go from $5 in Jan to 15 in Jul Its time to sell regardless of the law suit.
Most of the SCO executives are still holding on to quite a bit of stock. They're going to have to pump it a few more times to get rid of it. Now the license announcement is causing slow recovery of the price but in real terms, the price has plateaued and more hammers are going to fall on them. SUSE has all but announced they're cooking up something nasty, Sony and other consumer electronics firms aren't going to want to pay for their bogus licenses. Last but not least, every kernel contributor is a bomb that could go off at any time. Some of them may even have money for ruinious countersuits of their own.
So what to do? They would have a hard time topping themselves in the outrageous statement department. I see at least four more pumping actions they can pull. They can loudly announce that they will "soon" be filing suit against large corporate users. When the price flattens out again, then they can actually file some of them. Then it's loud announcement time again. This time they'll bleat that individual users and small organizations are being sued. Then they can actually sue a few.
They're like a turd on the ground. Yeah, we'll be able to squash it but the smell will stick to our shoes for a loooong while.
According to the story, SCO burned through $14 million last fiscal year. They had $10 million in the bank in April. This is about 8 1/2 months worth of fuel. This is assuming that this year is the same as last in terms of revenue (probably going down) and expenses (probably going up). So 8 1/2 months from April puts them running on fumes in December. I doubt this saga will drag on for years.
Put options give you the right to sell the stock at a later date, but at, say, today's price. The only risk is the price of the put, wheras when you short stock you have arbitrary exposure if the stock goes up.
Also, it is probably easier to get approval from a broker to trade puts. Shorting stock basically means him lending you stock. Buying puts avoids that aspect of it.
[eco2geek@Jean-Luc]$man sco
SCO(6)NAME
sco - FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) spreader and SCO Group satirizerSYNOPSIS
sco OPTIONDESCRIPTION
SCO Group alleges that IBM misappropriated SCO's intellectual property and put it into Linux. SCO sued IBM for more than $3 billion (up from an original claim of $1 billion) in damages, and sent 1,500 letters to businesses warning them of possible liability for using Linux. Many critics think SCO's tactics are simply a way for a dying company to salvage whatever profitability it can. The most jaded critics allege that SCO's actions are a way for the company management to sell off stock at artificially inflated prices before the company folds (a.k.a. a "pump and dump" scheme).-q, --quote
Displays a quote associated with the case. Quotes come from industry analysts, IBM and SCO Group officials, and leaders in the Linux community.-dp, --display-proof
Displays the Linux kernel code that SCO alleges belongs to it (the result is a blank page, since SCO refuses to release its "evidence" publicly). Press "q" to return).-skl, --sco-kernel-license
Displays the license agreement of the Linux kernel that SCO is distributing with its OpenLinux distribution, on its publicly-accessible ftp site. (Surprise: It's the GPL.)-l, --legalize
Asks if you wish to delete the entire contents of-lb, --legalize-boot
Asks if you wish to delete the entire contents of-v, --version
Prints the version and copyright information, then exits.AUTHORS
Sosume Donchuwana and Greedo UnBridledDISCLAIMER
SCO, the SCO Group, and OpenLinux are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. and used here for satirical purposes only.SEE ALSO
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?topic=88sco 1.0 - August 2003 - SCO(6)
I read in Adbusters once. It was about revoking corporate personhood. Used to be that corporations existed at the sufferance of the public. They were allowed to operate for fixed periods of time, like 5 or ten years. Sort of like the Hudson's Bay Company. At the end of that time they had to petition to renew their right to exist. If they behaved badly, they were squashed like bugs.
Then there was a landmark case in this country back in the 1800's (Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad) that established that corporations are legal persons. They have all the rights that an actual person has, except they exist potentially forever and don't have any of the responsibilities that you and I have. So essentially General Electric is in the eyes of the law an incredibly large, multi-billionaire. But unlike you or I, GE cannot now be put to death for its crimes.
Adbuster suggested that either we revoke corporate personhood, or we institute the death penalty for corporations that cannot behave. Ahem, can anyone think of any corporations we might apply this to?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And here we have a shining example of the modernized version of the pump and dump. It's too bad that business laws are changed only after at least one company takes advantage of others.
I don't admire what they did at all. They are money-chasing scum. You should not just laugh off what they did, unless you are also prepared to trade your values for cash.
No, trying to steal money from others is bad by misrepresenting the assets of your company to potential shareholders so that they will value your company more highly, so that you can sell to them and call out "sucker!!!" as you flee the scene is bad.
Don't pretend they're making an honest profit here because there's no way to interpret that from the facts.
Oh, and putting food on the table is only good if you can do it while not taking food off of the table of others (i.e. if you produce something, or otherwise add value to the system). In my humble opinion, anyway.
Regards,
Ross
- Bawa Opindar, VP Global Services
- Bought: 7,912 shares
- Sold: 22,916 shares
- Gain: $ 132,746.40
- Robert K. Bench, CFO
- Sold: 18,000 shares
- Gain: $ 153,531.50
- Ronald Charles Broughton, Sr VP Int'l Sales
- Sold: 45,000 shares
- Gain: $ 546,749.50
- Jeff F Hunsaker, VP Worldwide Mktng
- Sold: 15,000 shares
- Gain: $ 170,194.60
- Michael P Olson, VP Finance
- Sold: 14,000 shares
- Gain: $ 135,928.00
- Michael Sean Wilson, Sr VP Corp Dev
- Bought: 12,000 shares
- Sold: 12,000 shares
- Gain: $ 121,365.00
Total ill-gotten gains: $ 1,260,515.00All this and more may be found at SCOX's SEC Page.
His firm just lost a case against it by the EEOC too. Boise is just like everyone else he puts his pants on one leg at a time. He has lost plenty but that isn't what they advertise. As far as I am concerned he lost the MS case. Since there was no penalty against MS and they are back to their old tricks.
Boise was a bad choice for a lawyer for SCO. They are going down like a led ballon. I mena he didn't even get his clients to keep their mouths shut? That is like lawyer 101.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Who do you dispise more?
1) SCO
2) RIAA
3) MPAA
4) MS
5) CN (Cowboy Neal)
We need a -1 dumbass and -1 stupid too.
Never confuse volume with power.
Their case will be shown to be demonstrably weak in a court of law, so their trying of the case in the media is akin to running up the share price on lies and deceit. Of course, unless someone can prove they knew how weak their case was, they're not going to get punished for it.
Hopefully the SEC will investigate. Definitely sounds like a pump and dump move to me.
$1.2 million worth among ALL the execs after a factor-of-ten jump? Peanuts. I'm surprised it isn't far more.
Even if they are darned sure they're going to win (and you NEVER know for sure with a court case), this looks like a bubble. It's much more likely to pop than keep rising. Even if it keeps going up the big inflation is probably over.
"Take the money and run." As I learned the hard way by NOT doing so before MY company took a factor-of-1,000 dive in the internet bubble-pop. Went from a paper multi-millionaire back to a multi-thousandaire - i.e. a working stiff with a mortgage - with enough still out on a credit card to just about cancel out my cash reserves. These guys have been through it before and it's hardly surprising if they want to lock in - or spend - some of their gain.
By the way: Looks like their war chest just got a $40 million boost from Computer Associates, who just caved on a suit SCO filed against them in 2001.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
After reading, "IBM's Linux customers include Unilever NV, the world's largest maker of food and soap..." I thought:
And on a related note: On news that Unilever used Linux, millions of unix-geeks washed today some for the first time since they used a command line, which for some was a long ago as 1993. Executives were pleased and announced plans to embed the mini-cd-linux-distro-de-jour inside every bar of soap...
Scox is a canopy company.
Canopy just won a $40 million settlement from CA.
Canopy is indirectly suing IBM though a company they control: scox.
Canopy won a huge settlement with microsoft: also by using scox, then called caldera.
Top exec at scox, sontag I think, said: "contracts are what you use against people."
Canopy controls about two dozen shell companies. All in the same area of Utah, all owned by Mormons. All the top execs are graduates of BYU, all sit on each others boards of directors, all have long business histories together. All own stock in each other, and trade that stock frantically.
If you do business with Canopy, Canopy will sue you - it's as simple as that. That is the only reason Canopy does business with another company.
Canopy companies don't really produce anything. They try to figure ways to sue other companies, and they do it very well.
NO, NO, NO!
You don't get it. I didn't say they were making an "honest profit" on the deal. That's the beauty of it. SCO execs and lawyers are taking their investers to the f'in cleaners with a totally bogus claim. They aren't being the least bit dishonest about that, they're laughing out loud. They haven't hidden the bogusness of thier claim.
I'm not saying it makes the profit honest. Just that they have the balls to do the equivelent of pointing to the sky and saying "oh look, a chicken" while they lift your wallet. It's funny!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Shouldn't evil be a positive mod?
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
Well, but the fact of the matter is that if you short a stock and the stock price goes up instead, you lose that much money per share. However, If you buy a put option and the price never goes low enough to excercise it, it is worthless when the time period is up. It also has to fall more than the cost of the option in order for you to make money. You don't put your life savings in a put option. In its most basic form, it's a high-risk, high-reward all or nothing bet. Kind of like buying SCO's stock right now ;)
Personally, I'd avoid BOTH of them (in addtion to SCO's fscking stock). See, it isn't enough to be right, you also have to be right within a certain time period. With a normal long-buy, you can have a stock fall for years before finally going through the roof. Waiting until the tide turns your way is not a luxury you would have with these two. If you short a stock you can theoretically lose an infinite amount of money. If the stock more than doubles, not only have you lost your whole initial investment, but you are now in debt. It doesn't matter if the stock goes to $.01 a year from now, if the broker thinks you might not have the cash to return his stock if it goes up any more, he can ask for it back. You will be forced to buy back the stock at whatever price it happens to be at. You can have a perfect prediction long term and still be fscked. Thats why you never sell somebody else's stock.
Sound far-fetched? Imagine you baught SCO's stock at $.60 a while back (it's at $10 now). Sure, it's a shitty, two-bit company that's going to zero, and it probably sounded like a good idea at the time. But unfortunately, as we have seen, it isn't going to take a staight line there with this lawsuit bull and few people have pockets THAT deep. You would have almost certainly lost your shirt by now. Oh and by the way, you don't get unlimited profit potential like you get with a regular stock purchase either. For your unlimited loss risk you can expect to make absolutely no more than double.
Stay far far away from this stuff kids. Your plain old ordinary stock purchase offers endless profit potential, limited loss, and the ability hold on to the stock as long or as little as you want in order to get a good price. That's how the really rich get that way and stay that way, they find a good piece of a business and hold on. Shorts and Puts are not investments. Believe me, it's no harder to pick a good long stock than it is a short one. They're a gamble, and very very few people make money and actually keep it gambling. Sure, you can make tons of money, but only to have it all come tumbling down, Enron or LTCM style, some fateful day.
If you want a copy, I've put it on here. Just copy it over to /usr/share/man/man1 and then type "man sco" from your favorite shell...
Please be gentle, my webserver is a PPro 200 with 128MB, on an ADSL line that's allegedly 1500/128. I can't believe I'm voluntarily slashdotting my own server, but this is worth it!
Have fun *grin*
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
IBM licenses used to allow you to have a fully operational backup computer on the same license, as long as it was NOT in standard use (on is ok, with first backing up to it). This was so you could instantly fire up the backup without any installing. As long as you only used ONE of the boxes, you were in compliance with the license.
I wonder if you can claim that with the twin: Its just a backup of the first kid, in case the first kid crashes, to avoid the extra $2499?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!