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."
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.
If I were a SCO shareholder and I saw the SCOX Chart, I would be dumping my stock too!
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
What does this say about SCO's belief in the lawsuit? McBribe was blathering on about how IBM's refusal to indemnify its customers showed what IBM thought of its case. How about the chiefs dumping all of their stock? Yeah that's a major confidence builder!
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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
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
...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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
5) profit!
Sounds like they may be joining Martha Stewart in jail soon ;^))
Science is the Real TRUTH!
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...
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.
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.
(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.
No worries. I'm the father of 8 month old twin boys and _I_ found it funny.
(The eldest, by two minutes, is disassembling his toys, God Love Him! -sniff!-)
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
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."
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"
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)
- 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... Sounds like just the winning lawyer I'd want on my side in a battle against a multi-billion dollar company.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 $10 million in the bank in April. This is about 8 1/2 months worth of fuel. This is assuming that this year is the same as last in terms of revenue (probably going down) and expenses (probably going up). So 8 1/2 months from April puts them running on fumes in December. I doubt this saga will drag on for years.
Put options give you the right to sell the stock at a later date, but at, say, today's price. The only risk is the price of the put, wheras when you short stock you have arbitrary exposure if the stock goes up.
Also, it is probably easier to get approval from a broker to trade puts. Shorting stock basically means him lending you stock. Buying puts avoids that aspect of it.
As the government's lawyer, Boies won the case against Microsoft, and his cross-examination of Microsoft's witnesses was legendary. See here, for example. So, yes, he would be just the lawyer I'd want on my side. It's very unfortunate that he's on SCO's side in this case.
[eco2geek@Jean-Luc]$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.
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
No worries. I'm the father of 8 month old twin boys and _I_ found it funny.
Its always funny until someone has to pay a dual royalty for having two children. At $2499 each, that means you own SCO 5 grand, and that price will double in less than a year when they hit 18 months! Still laughing?
The article didn't mention if you received a license for one cpu along with the immunity from the standard baby killing. I couldn't find out on the SCO website either...
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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
I just found this really hilarious quote on one of SCO's early press releases (http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=41
"Caldera and 'Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business' are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera Systems Inc."
Not only were they putting Unix code into Linux, but they fucking TRADEMARKED it!!!
Does anyone have any Ace Bandages? I need to wrap something around my torso before I bust my gut laughing.
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.