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"."
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?
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