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."

25 of 691 comments (clear)

  1. Fark: Obvious by frieked · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Fark: Obvious by wo1verin3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>Hey loser- you may think it is funny to joke
      >>about shooting babies, but outside of your
      >>close-knit circle of pasty white, pear shaped,
      >>stinky nerd friends, that is not funny and
      >>it's rather offensive.

      Hi. Welcome to SlashDot. Are you enjoying your first day here?

    2. Re:Fark: Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get a life, asshole. Shooting babies is funny.

    3. Re:Fark: Obvious by FurryFeet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh... the noob even mispelled "luser"...

    4. Re:Fark: Obvious by tds67 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Hey loser- you may think it is funny to joke about shooting babies, but outside of your close-knit circle of pasty white, pear shaped, stinky nerd friends, that is not funny and it's rather offensive.

      Hey now, we're not that close-knit.

    5. Re:Fark: Obvious by Psyx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow! You did an amazing job. Google News is now reporting this on their front page:

      SCO Execs Dumping Stock
      Slashdot - 10 minutes ago
      Lindon, UT - The SCO Group announced the launch of a campaign to shoot 1% of all babies born in the US.

  2. Mainstream media? by Bob+McCown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the mainstream media is finally going to get a peek at what we've been talking about for months!

    1. Re:Mainstream media? by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doubt it. SCOX stock is not really discussed by any professionals at this point. it has little to no institutional ownership. The players are ignoring SCOX...

      " Their CFO started the $1.2 million sell-off just after the lawsuit."

      I kind of think they started this dump AFTER their stock when through the roof. WHy did their stock go through the roof? First profitable quarter ever. Why was it the first profitable quarter ever? Microsoft. RTFQ(Q=Quarterly report) [Sun also bought a license]

      This was for UNIX licensing, little different that the law suit related stuff sort of.

      BTW, you should see all the sub $1.00 stock options flying about.

      Im into these fools for about 100 shares. On the short side.

  3. well... by cruppel · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's a new, but not suprising meaning to "take a wicked dump."

  4. Where the HELL is the SEC? by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Where the HELL is the SEC? by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it is illegal if they're making bogus claims to get themselves in the news with the sole purpose of making their stock take off. Then they dump it all before it crashes...

    2. Re:Where the HELL is the SEC? by guanxi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's class action attorneys, and not the SEC, that 'regulate' this behavior. The SEC can't have the resources to regulate every company in the U.S. but class action attorneys, because of the contingency fee structure, do have the resources to sue them.

      Why do you think the corporations complain so much about class action lawyers? You don't hear them whining about the SEC.

      I only say this because I always hear complaints about class action attorneys (which seems strange to me on Slashdot). They perform an essential, and very valuable public service. And yes, they make good money from it -- but only when they win.

    3. Re:Where the HELL is the SEC? by milo_Gwalthny · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, they don't only make good money when they win. They generally make good money when they settle, which they seem to do at least 99% of the time. Much of the time they settle for less than what it would cost the sued company to adequately defend the lawsuit. That seems like a shakedown. You don't read about it in the paper, but this happens all the time.

      The other problem with class action litigators is that they keep a huge chunk of whatever damages are collected, rather than giving it to the people damaged. This makes their winnings a de facto penalty, rather than a repayment of damages. Penalties should be imposed by and paid to the government, in my opinion, not by and to individuals. If the class action attorneys can make so much money (and some of them have made a *lot* of money) from penalties, why shouldn't the SEC be allowed to enforce laws and extract penalties? In effect you've outsourced justice to a bunch of unprincipled vigilantes. Not good.

      --
      Milo
    4. Re:Where the HELL is the SEC? by stephenry · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This was an interesting post over on Yahoo (concerning the dramatic rise in SCO share price in the closing minutes of trading):

      "100 share lots, and the whole last 1o minutes (half the gain on the day) were done on less than 5000 shares. Thats less than 1/250th ( 0.4% - 4/10 of a percent) of the daily volume accounting for over HALF the closing price.

      If you look at the whole runup at the end, less than 1% of the volume accounted for 80% of the closing price gain.

      Someone is playing real monkey business with this stock.

      I wish there was full disclosure with buying and selling like there is on political donations. It would be very interesting to see who it is that keeps manipulating the closing price."

      That's Illegal.

  5. It's a Good Thing(tm)! by Geekenstein · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  6. Source by tbdean · · Score: 5, Informative

    At least point at the source:

    SCO Group to Shoot Babies

    And haven't you heard? On /. we hate BBSpot. It's only on Fark that we love Brian.

    --
    tbdean
  7. Re:SCOX price chart by hobit · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    As Nietsche famously said, "If you stare too long into the Abyss, 1d4 Tanar'ri of random type will attack you."
  8. Selling not as descriptive as Buying by some+damn+guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Selling not as descriptive as Buying by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hopefully the SEC will investigate. Definitely sounds like a pump and dump move to me.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  9. Re: Article on SCO Execs Dumping Stock by CaptainTux · · Score: 5, Funny

    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"
  10. Re:A better chart by Lord+Custos · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Whats sad is when you compare it to Redhat

  11. Re:Kinda says it all, doesn't it. by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article:

    • 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. :)

  12. Re:A better chart by MurghMakni · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since you have to borrow the stock, someone has to loan it to you. Typically, your broker would loan you the stock. SCOX is not widely held and there aren't many shares outstanding, so it is known as a hard to borrow stock, making it very hard to short. I write software for a stock trading company and SCOX is on our list of stocks we can't short.

  13. Someone ought to add a "sco" program to Linux... by eco2geek · · Score: 5, Funny
    Sorry if this is a bit OT, but I couldn't resist...suggestions?

    [eco2geek@Jean-Luc]$man sco

    SCO(6)

    NAME

    sco - FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) spreader and SCO Group satirizer

    SYNOPSIS

    sco OPTION

    DESCRIPTION

    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 /usr/src/linux as a way to prepare your computer for a "legal" SCO version of the kernel source. If your answer is "y" or "yes", does a realistic job of pretending to delete /usr/src/linux; otherwise, congratulates you on your wisdom and does nothing.

    -lb, --legalize-boot

    Asks if you wish to delete the entire contents of /boot as a way to prepare your computer for a "legal" SCO version of the kernel. If your answer is "y" or "yes", does a realistic job of pretending to delete /boot; otherwise, congratulates you on your wisdom and does nothing.

    -v, --version

    Prints the version and copyright information, then exits.

    AUTHORS

    Sosume Donchuwana and Greedo UnBridled

    DISCLAIMER

    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=88

    sco 1.0 - August 2003 - SCO(6)

  14. A different idea by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.