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!
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?
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
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
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
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