Slashdot Mirror
SCO Claims $15,300,000 From SCOsource
Hollins writes "Yesterday, SCO filed their latest 10-Q. In it, they claim over fifteen million dollars in revenue from their SCOsource initiative (mostly from Microsoft and Sun) with a decline in revenue from all other sources. A lot of interesting statements are in the 10-Q, including "The success of our SCOsource licensing initiative, at least initially, will depend to a great extent on the perceived strength of our intellectual property and contractual claims and our willingness to enforce our rights. Many, particularly those in the open source community, dispute the allegations of infringement that we have made"."
Duh. You just tried to charge for Linux.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Well that's to be expected of Microsoft; by undermining Linux, their monopoly become even more powerful, even if it means giving millions away.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
It's clear that MS is exploring how to support their offensive on Linux, but why Sun? Same reason? I guess Solaris' greatest enemy is not MS anymore, but Linux.
The 10Q is known as the Chicken Little of financial documents precisely because of the warnings it lists in the forward looking statements.
It wouldn't be too far fetched to see something like "In the event that a terrorist attack destroyed the databases containing proof of our IP claims, it is possible that we may not be able to meet our cash flow expectations"
...with revenue of $15,530,000 from our SCOsource licensing initiative, have resulted in the first two profitable quarters in our history.
..."a decline in product revenue of $1,835,000 and a decline in services revenue of $774,000."
They're profitable. First time ever. Its interesting that this licencing scheme brought them over the top. Does anyone have any numbers of how far they'd be in the red if it wasnt for this initiative? It doesnt seem to say in the article.
But it does say this:
So, if they werent profitable before, then a decline in product and service revenue should put them *far* into the red without the SCOSource thing.
.
So assuming that SCO loses this court battle.. do they all get arrested for fraud if they don't return the money raised for license fees. I mean, they are essentially telling people to pay for something they don't own. I can claim that you have to pay me money to drink liquid, and I'm sure there are enough morons out there that would do it to give me a nice little income, but I thought that would put you behind bars.
Can someone familiar with the 10-Q requirements explain whether this omission is permissable (because it was brought in Germany?) or has SCO done something else naughty?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
"Many, particularly those in the open source community, dispute the allegations of infringement that we have made."
Isn't this a bit like calling a nuclear war a "mild nuclear war"?
> Many, particularly those in the open source community, dispute the allegations of infringement that we have made.
Maybe you should consider showing us some EVIDENCE, fuckwits.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So this pretty much says they are leaking cash like a open wound leaks blood and that the only way they can make money is from two companies who are essentially bankrolling their court case.
Flip a quarter, will the stock prices go up or go down?
what is MS liscensing from them? ;)
Perhaps Win2k containcs SCO code? that would explain a lot.
about 8 million dollars of what?
thats well over 11000 liscenses at 699 a pop.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh, shut up. Everyone Slashbot attempts to start some sort of "boycott" against absolutely everything under the sun. As if the miniscule revenue from a bunch of Slashbots is keeping the company afloat. These boycotts disappear just like the article they're posted in that disappear off the front page and are forgotten.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Maybe I should stop trying to be funny and just be blatant. Bill Gates probably has a lot of goodwill towards Darl et al at the moment, as they are spreading FUD about Linux for him.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
Non-License License revenue, all hype, no products, and many lawsuits. Ah, it takes me back to 1999 .....
SCO will crash just as hard and fast. And in the current financial climate, the SEC will be knocking within minutes.
Perceived is the key word here.
Notice that the licenses sold to Sun and Microsoft account for 100% of their SCOsource revenue, and neither appear to be Linux related, meaning that they've fooled noone into buying their $699 licenses, not even a single idiot.
This means that absolutely linux users, out of the millions out there, believes they have a valid argument enough to buy a license. Not 1%, not 0.00001%. Not a single one. This should say something to investors, but looking back on history, it probably won't.
Their quarterly report shows that their IP claims have no perceived strength at all, but rather it shows producers of operating systems threatened by Linux pumping money into FUD marketting business to make the campaign last as long as possible.
According to people who have actually tried it it isn't even possible to sign up for a user license, at any rate.
No license is actually available.
It's all a big dog and pony show (with fake dogs and ponies) and even SCO staff are puzzled and frustrated, particularly the sales staff who actually have to tell people to take a hike.
Cute, huh?
KFG
And now on to my real good point...
This kind of media coverage could definitely send Linux to the top of the enterprise server arena after the lawsuits all disintegrate. All these actions do is give extreme amounts of credibility to Linux and it's viability in an enterprise setting. I can see the "suits" now. "Hmm, maybe geeky bob in IT was right, there is something to this Linux thing."
I would assume that most people (even IT illiterate ones) could draw the conclusion that if Linux was just a "hacker toy", then why is it making SCO, Microsoft, and SUN so nervous in the enterprise server market?
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
Man, i must be tired or something because I couldnt understand a single word from the thread.
keanmarine.com
The rumour is that Computer Associates bought a license for $1,200 as part of their $40,000,000 settlement with the Canopy Group.
I know Computer Associates has more than 2 systems that run Linux. Also I don't think that the text of the Linux License has been finallized. Plus TSG lies all the time anyways... So who knows what to believe?
Ah well therein lies the problem doesn't it? The paying customers really don't give a damn. They don't care how your politics go, they just want to get their job done cheap. And Sun can undercut Microsoft with Mad Hatter and the other products. And though they may well piss off Open Source developers, no one's seen anything bad happen to a company as a result of doing that. You can't very well tell them "No you can't use Gnome" since that'd render the community a bunch of hypocrites. And you can mostly get around the lgpl at least by coding separate applications with the stuff you want to keep proprietary.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Please. Microsoft gave them money. How where they to know that the money would be used to discredit the linux community. It's not like they tagged the money "only to be used against IBM and Linux".
The entire point of this document is to get Darl & Co. out of hot water when the lawsuits start flying. When it becomes clear to the general public that the SCO claims were full of shit, and that the insiders cashed out during that period, shareholders will start suing, and the SEC may even launch an investigation. McBride will point to this 10Q and say "we warned you that our claims might not hold up in court, and we furthermore went on to warn you that if our claims did not hold up, SCOsource would stop making money, and we would have no more revenue."
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
It's a surprise that SCO's attack on Linux is funded my Microsoft? I've been boring myself saying this for at least 3 months. Damn, if I could find those old comments.
The scene: Microsoft is at war with Linux specifically, OSS generally, IBM implicitly, and the entire forward-looking IT community fundamenally.
The problem: no-one believes a word that Microsoft says, anymore. The phrase "convicted monopolist" just rings too true. OK, thinks Mr CIO, we'll buy their products, because we have no choice, but they are a bunch of liars, and the sooner we can switch to something cheaper and safer, the better for all of us.
The solution: launch a jihad through a shadow company. What better than Caldera, a failing Linux broker, who just happened to buy some Unix IP and is run by lawyers...
The plan: Caldera renames itself to SCO to give itself some more street cred, then launches a one-two attack, first on IBM to give it that "David vs. Goliath" street cred. Hey, maybe someone thinks the world still hates IBM. (Guys, that is so 1980's!) Next, bounce off that attack into a full-frontal assault on Linux, using the tried and proven OJ defense. "Yes, gentlemen and ladies, if Linus is from Sweden, then all your source must belong to us!!"
The press: it's a slow summer, and all this news is welcome. Hey, so are the little presents from those generous guys at SCO. Darl, we liked the trip to Malibu, yes sir!
Microsoft: discrete distance. If SCO explode, they don't want to be contaminated.
Darl's game: the hike in share value was an unexpected bonus, but hey, it's welcome. The real payoff is the parachute that Microsoft have prepared, a buy-out of SCO once/if they can win enough control over Linux. Imagine the scoop: Redmond buys Linux, a full fist up the backside for all those open source hackers. Wet dreams for the Redmond Boys, who have perhaps strayed into one goatse.cs too many.
The OSS Community: "they can't be that stupid, surely?" Answer: no, they can't. So go figure their evil plan.
Remember: this is happening in the USA, the country which has little stickers on hifi equipment saying "warning: not for internal consumption", the land of absolute truths, where a 12 year-old can be a cybercriminal, where laws are treated not as approximations but as holy documents. If, when, SCO win legal control over Linux, however bizarre the means and flimsy the justification, it will be an absolute win for Microsoft.
My surprise is that the Microsoft sponsorship actually came to light so soon. I'd have thought they would find some way to hide it more discretely. As for Sun, all I can say is someone got them right proper. Silly eejits, did you really have to bend to Darl's salestalk? You've truly gone and made a huge mistake there, it is the death of your business.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Why don't we start as a community selling sco short (borrowing their stock from a brokerage house and selling it immediately, then you wait for the price to drop and buy it back, the broker gets his stock back and you get the difference in the price)
1. it is a chance for some of us to make some money off of sco, for a change
2. if the trend is noticed then people will start dumping the stock, thus hurting sco directly and getting our faithful paid back sooner
3. we know for a fact that they are lying through their teeth, trying to bluff the stock price up, this is the best way I know to call that bluff and end their charade