Slashdot Mirror
SCO Investor Changing the Deal
Kurt Wall writes "According to this story, recent SCO investor Royal Bank of Canada appears to be changing its tune. RBC, along with BayStar Capital, invested $50 million in SCO, but now has changed the deal to give it veto power over the payment of the 20% contingency fees SCO's IP lawyers will get. As to the wisdom of the investment itself, an RBC spokesman would only say that the 'investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions.' Such as the SCO case collapsing, perhaps?"
why they must have been on blow !
I'm sure SCO's lawyers are going to be upset about this.
SCO's lawyers: "That wasn't part of the bargain!"
RBC: "We're altering the deal, pray we do not alter it further..."
I think we'd all enjoy a nice cold beverage. -David Letterman
...when you sell out. Poor SCO, probably didn't know what it was getting into when they were tempted with all that money.
Why aren't people selling their SCOX stocks! They are going to crump. Sell now...
Charts...
Going down over the last 5 days
About the same over the last 3 months
Looks like the banks realize their "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions." "The court gave SCO 30 days to provide IBM with information and source code to prove its allegations. SCO, the ruling stated, must give IBM "all source code and other material in Linux ... to which [SCO] has rights; and the nature of plaintiff's rights."
Take a dump or get off the pot!
...when SCO's lawyers turn around and sue them next. It'll go from being "SCO Sues World" to "World Sues SCO"...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
... banks calculate risk and gamble on the outcome just like any business does.
Dogg
Critics have speculated that the high contingency fee suggests that SCO, in suing Linux users, is trying to pump up its stock prior to selling it, an action that would reward its lawyers handsomely.
Of course they're trying to pump up the stock! Without Darl's henchmen..uh..lawyers guaranteed a huge payment for the sale of the company, they're sunk.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Subject says it all.
Blame Canada!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Sometime late last fall I received a call from a local business. They had a Unix box that was on the fritz, but unfortunately only had MCSE's on their support staff.
After meeting up with my contact at the site, I tried to get a little more information about what kind of problem it was having. As we walked to the elevators he explained that no one really knew exactly what the box did, or if it was even in use anymore, but it was obvious that the machine was rebooting itself for no apparent reason.
We got out of the elevator at the basement level of the building. The server was sitting alone in a damp room with a concrete floor and concrete walls. I was already pretty sure it was going to be a hardware problem, since Unix boxes don't tend to reboot for absolutely no reason. I pointed out that the damp environment was undoubtedly bad for the machine.
He said, "The honest truth is, no one wants anything to do with this box. It's sitting down here because we're out of space in our server room, and the only guy that knew anything about this box quit three years ago, so we don't even know if it's doing anything useful." With that he turned and left me to figure out the problem.
The machine was plugged in, the power switch was on, but the console was blank and mashing on the keyboard didn't seem to have any affect.
As I was unscrewing the side panel from the case I started to notice that there was a really rank stench in the room. When I first entered the room I figured it was just mildew from the dampness or something, but it was really strong now. I really just wanted to get out of that dimly lit room and out into the sunlight and fresh air.
It was hard to see anything in the case, so I fumbled around inside it with my hands making sure all the internal cables were securely attached to their respective components. Suddenly I felt something squishy and slimy on my hand and jerked it out of the box.
At that instant the machine came on and began to POST. As the memory counted up, I turned the box so I could see into it by the light of the screen. Now I could see the cause of the problem. A rat had crawled into the case via an open drive bay and made a nest near one of the power supplies. She and several hairless newborns had died in there a week or two previous, and I had just stuck my hand in the middle of it all.
As I was wiping my hands off on my pants, I noticed the machine had finished booting. I was like "Ugh, gross! This thing is running SCO Unix!"
Needless to say, I marched right up to the IT offices and told them that the machine was undoubtedly no longer relevant to their business and that they should just throw the whole mess in the dumpster.
---
Raising the bar on Slashdot trolling since 2003
Institutional investors will not permit Darl McBride to line lawyers pockets with their money! I bet they are sorry they even invested in the SCO scam to begin with!
SCO has admitted that its action is designed to shore up sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which [something is missing here] Linux was derived.
Shouldn't the blank be filled in by the words "SCO contends"? As in, "Unix, an older operating system from which SCO contends Linux was derived."
I thought the whole point of the defense against SCO is that Linux is Unix-like, but *not* "derived" from Unix. Unless I'm wrong (a frequent situation), the newspaper article has swallowed a little too much FUD today.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
..doesn't appear impressed with SCO either!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
It can be positive or malicious, informed or ignorant, but it always affects the company involved.
So RBC does business with Red Hat, and needs to hedge against them going bust when SCO wins? Or they are hedging short positions they already had in SCO because of selling call options or the like to clients?
It would make some sense if they said 'we have lots of Linux boxes, and we want to get cash if SCO wins to cover the licence fees'...
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Hmmm...what do they need $50MM for? If IBM (and the rest of the planet) are about to fold and have to pay huge bux to SCO, why do they need the invesment? Even if the IBM claim goes to trial, it will go to trial within a year or two so I would only imagine that SCO needs a couple of years worth of burnrate. It just seems to me weird that a company that only is losing a few hundred thou a year needs such a big investment.
What other transaction is there for SCO than the lawsuit? Obviously that was a protective move in case SCO discovers that in fact, some one of their coders actually did a poor man's copyright on the whole SCO UNIX source, and then died or something.
stuff |
I'm just watching SCO stock quotes and FINALLY they began running in the correct direction!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Probably you! You support SCO if you have investments with any of these companies or mutual fund holders...
Capital Guardian Trust Company 1,177,800 8.51 $16,288,974 30-Sep-03
Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC 316,600 2.29 $4,378,578 30-Sep-03
Royce & Associates, Inc. 1,441,200 10.41 $19,931,796 30-Sep-03
Integral Capital Management V, LLC 246,730 1.78 $3,412,275 30-Sep-03
Empire Capital Partners LP 205,000 1.48 $1,961,849 30-Jun-03
Barclays Bank Plc 174,686 1.26 $2,415,907 30-Sep-03
Bjurman, Barry & Associates 160,000 1.16 $2,212,800 30-Sep-03
ING Investments, LLC 143,100 1.03 $1,979,073 30-Sep-03
Oberweis Asset Management Inc. 112,000 0.81 $1,548,960 30-Sep-03
Whitney Asset Management LLC 76,967 0.56 $1,064,453 30-Sep-03
Royce Technology Value Fund 105,000 0.76 $1,004,849 30-Jun-03
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 24,713 0.18 $236,503 30-Jun-03
Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund 17,875 0.13 $171,063 30-Jun-03
Marketocracy Masters 100 Fund 3,900 0.03 $53,937 30-Sep-03
Spartan Extended Market Index Fund 3,753 0.03 $54,831 31-Aug-03
Spartan Total Market Index Fund 3,132 0.02 $45,758 31-Aug-03
Vanguard Balanced Index Fund 2,125 0.02 $20,336 30-Jun-03
Quantitative Master Series Tr-Extended Market Index Seri 1,775 0.01 $16,986 30-Jun-03
Vanguard Institutional Index-Inst Total Stock Market Ind 705 0.01 $6,746 30-Jun-03
Manufacturers Investment Trust-Total Stock Market Index 349 0 $3,339 30-Jun-03
Ladies and Gentlemen, the rush of wind you just heard was the sound of SCOX stock deflating. Please brace yourself for the wailing and knashing of teeth of the SCO Group and their investors, followed by the lynching of Darl McBride. Torches and pitchforks will be available in the main lobby.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Where is a Golgafrincham Space Ark when you need one?
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
So did SCO just announce that intend to issue more stock? I'm confused by what they intend to gain from this statement.
And now, did then just announce their intent to sell the company?
Like I say, I'm not a lawyer, and this might be typical legalese, but if not, is this significant?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Well, it was fun bashing SCO while it lasted, but finally some investors have gotten some brains smacked into them and are wising up to SCO's ways. As I always said, the faster SCO goes bankrupt, the faster I can get SCO stuff at the bankruptcy auction for cheap....
Wonder if SCO would sell me some of their copyrights to UNIX....
Hopefully the stock keeps up this trajectory!
--
I am cool for a variety of reason, but mostly because I use Oddpost
BC spokesman would only say that the 'investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions.'
What he really meant to say was: "we don't really give a shit about this company, and this investment was the stupidest crap we've ever done."
Will code a sig generator for food
...is the fact that the legal charges are so high that the payback might not be worth it. The writing on the wall is that even if SCO wins, the remedy will be to remove the offending code. I want to meet the business planner that came up with this ass-dumb idea.
Lando Calrissian: You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision.
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Strange...their site does not seem to up at present. What a pity, I was going to order 10,000 Linux licenses today.
1. the client in "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions." does not refer to SCO. It's a standard diversification mechanism banks use to spread around their depositor's money. (depositors are the clients)
2. The article does not brake the case, or says that RBC has any doubt in the validity of SCO's case. RBC is concerned with the compensation scheme SCO devised for its lawers. SCO doesn't have much Cash to through around, but it has high-valued stock. The decision to pays lawers with stock or proceeds from sale (almost equivalent to owning stock and getting the fair share from sale) was contrary to SCO's previous arrangements with the ACTUAL investors like RBC.
IBM scored a surprise legal victory in that court case when a judge ruled on Friday in favour of IBM in SCO's trade-secret violation lawsuit against the computing giant.
Huh? Even SCO wasn't surprised by what happened last friday in court.
-MDL
Happy meals fund terrorism
... is to learn of a way to short SCOX.
I've looked, and I see no reference online to short options on SCOX.
Is it just me or does this article seem to have a Pro-Sco slant towards it?
:-) (emphasis on surprise)
SCO has admitted that its action is designed to shore up sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived.
Derived is used rather loosely here. To a casual looker, it might sound like SCO is in the right.
IBM scored a surprise legal victory in that court case when a judge ruled on Friday in favour of IBM in SCO's trade-secret violation lawsuit against the computing giant.
Whoa!
SCO had been pressuring the courts to force IBM to reveal its Unix and Linux source code so SCO could prove that IBM was using stolen code. But the judge ruled that SCO would have to present its own Unix source code first and identify which software code had been stolen.
That does'nt make sense considering just about anyone can look at Linux source.
Now that the pump & dump value is greatly reduced, look for the high-priced lawyers (Boises et al) to be replaced by Darl's brother and My Cousin Vinny.
Bloomberg hasn't picked this up yet. Bloomberg is slipping. Yahoo Finance doesn't have it yet either.
This is an unusual investment for a bank. It's a pure speculative play. Their management is probably kicking themselves for buying in at the top.
They call the investment "passive", but they have control over SCO's biggest asset, the litigation division. They're watching this like a hawk, just as we are.
sigs, as if you care.
Someone needs to make some kind of java or javascript countdown thingy that displays the exact number of days hours minutes seconds until the deadline at which SCO must by the last court ruling produce its specific evidence as to which parts of Linux violate their copyrights
Then put it at the bottom of all SCO-related slashdot stories.
SCO's lawyers: "That wasn't part of the bargain!"
RBC: "We're altering the deal, pray we do not alter it further...
They aren't altering SCO's deal with the lawyers.
What they're doing is getting agreement from SCO that SCO will not take an additional unilateral action (such as selling the company) that will trigger the CYA part of the deal (giving 20% of the company to the lawyers) - unless SCO first gets investor approval.
"You promised them 20% of the company if you sold it. That would dilute our investment. So don't do that without asking us first."
NO change to the deal with the lawyers. Just don't push the red button (and give away a fifth of the store) without asking the owners first.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Does anyone else think that gambling on SCOX stock , by a BANK nonetheless, is absolutely ludicrous ?
This just goes to show that there are rich suckers out there that never deserved to make a profit. Should change name from ROYAL BANK to ROYAL CASINO BANK.
Just hope this fiaSCO does not does not wind up with a UNIX exclusive only to MS REDMOND!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Of course, this clause can also be seen as an admission that it's only due to suing that they're getting any money at all, and that without the diligent efforts of the lawyers the company is worthless. Nice concession on their part, confirming that they don't have anything to sell that anyone wants to buy unless threatened.
when vader changes the terms of the deal and tell calrissian "pray I dont alter it any further". Boy that was a good scene! So astute!
While closing I load I'd had for 3 years with RBC the loan officier tried to get me to open a bank account with them, I told them I wouldn't be doing further business with them, she asked why.
:)
After a brief discussion, she had no idea what SCO was so she called over the bank manager who again, was totally clueless. Sigh.
Unfortunately as a result, they're helping prop up the stock price of an really awful company.
Vote Quimby.
The investment has nothing to do with merits.
If SCO wins this case other companies who are Linux dependant will get a HUGE loss.
RBC has probaly invested in some of these companies.
They gamble a small amount of money on SCO winning.
This way they have less risk, SCO loses, their Linux investments payback - 50 million.
The SCO case wins, they lose their Linux investments (or they are damaged) They get a windfall from SCO which partially offsets this loss.
Think of gambling on a sports games against two people.
They will pay 3:1 that their team wins.
Bet $2, $1 each, and no matter who wins, you are ahead $1. Welcome to hedging.
All the excessive service charges?
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
"... umm, now the time has come. Finally. I have to do something about this. First I will have to fight with them in court...goddamn BayStar... what else should I, .... oh! I should write letters. A nice Christmas card to Ms. DiDio and Rob Enderle!! They can save my ass again and salvage my company. Let's write a note to PR..."
--sound from one anonymous executive office in Lindon, UT
SCO has been rated a strong sell for quite some time. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a stock rated as a stong sell? Yet investors continue to speculate and drive the price up--till now.
One user states:
Perhaps I wax pragmatically?
db
Cig:
ôô
Slashdotting the Globe and Mail? Like that's going to happen!
You can't spell Fiasco without SCO
at the speed of right? you can bet your .asp on that won.
The site is up and running. It's not even slowed. They have bigger servers than /. does, for crying out loud.
stock brokers are they to take your money. not make you money. I guess people have to learn the hard way. Know what you're doing and don't assume some one else will take care of it for you, until they've proven to a high degree of certainty the person is trust worthy.
... since this article came on. it was fine until 5mins ago. (was $14.??, some 5% down from yesterday, if my memory serves)
This seems to be making sense. The investment companies are playing both sides against the middle. If SCO wins, the consequences will be likely be lower earnings for companies that must pay the licensing fees. OTOH, the investment bankers who have invested with SCO will be able to offset those losses by their earnings from SCO. If SCO loses, they lose their investment, but it is not that much money.
As far as the lawyer veto, I think this is just another hedge in case SCO loses. The bankers want to keep the money instead of paying for currently promised obligation. In any event, they will probably just go court and claim that the lawyer fees are excessive. No one likes lawyers, and even in the case where a lawyer funds a litigation, such as the tobacco case with the states, the courts seem willing to put aside contractual obligations to the detriment of the lawyers.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
did anybody else notice the other reason RBC has
? f= features
."
been in the news
http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,11460,00.html
lately? To quote:
"Goldin said that Bank of America and Royal Bank
of Canada knew of fraud in Enron-related
transactions. .
Charming profile they're developing of late.
The insiders *are* selling their shares. Darl isn't ... because he's already sold them. However, he's got another 600K options coming due soon. If ... he ... can ... just ... keep the stock up, he'll have "earned" a few million more for himself. And in any case he can always vote himself a 2M bonus for having attracted so much new investment.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Because they know that SCO will be bought out. It's a simple as that. [tinfoil hat]Maybe not by IDM, but perhaps by it's secret daddy, M$. [/timfoil hat]
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I am really quite shocked to learn that RBC would drop $50 million into SCO? That is absursd (no more absurd than any other bank/investor that has been doing it I suppose), but it just seems so clear to me that SCO is basically...well... screwed. Any article you read from Groklaw, or other sources leave SCO's case looking like swiss cheese and smelling like blue.
;)
Maybe before investing in any new mutual funds, I'll ask the financial advisor if Slashdot is one of the sites they do some research on before they decide to drop 50 million in a peon piss stupid company (SCO) that has just pissed off a giant (IBM) or six (SuSe, Redhat, pick some others, la de da)...
java guy, tech blog...
but their operation is now supposedly profitable because of the cash rolling in from the new source licenses. They don't need this additional capital unless they have plans to invest in expansion of their extortion racket
or could it be that they are not satisfied with the the two licenses they sold to Microsoft and Sun and so some round about means of a pay off was needed so it would not be too obvious they were being paid off.
we may never know, we can only speculate what happens in the shadows.
burnin
I am surpised that the main stream press did not make more of the fact that David Boise et al did not appear in court last week. You would think the law firm would at least have a representive present. Oh I would love to be a fly on wall back at SCO central right now.
If I was a SCO sucker^h^h^h^h^h investor this would be a very troubling sign. In fact, Boise's presence is the only thing that really gave the lawsuit credibility - regardless of the fact that he lost the last two highly publized lawsuits.
The short percentage on this stock is huge and that can help keep the stock price, up strangely enough. As the stock drops people complete the short transaction, which is "buying back" the shares that they sold earlier.
The story notes, "IBM scored a surprise legal victory in that court case when a judge ruled on Friday in favour of IBM in SCO's trade-secret violation lawsuit against the computing giant..."
I'm certainly no legal expert, but was this really that much of a surprise? From most legal info I've read about the case, it seem fairly accepted that SCO is really just fishing.
RBC are the worst fucking bank in Canada. They have prohibitive fees, flood their customers with ads and now, I see that they invested in SCO.
umm... no, it's not speculation; it's a hedge.
as in, "some of our clients have invested in linux; if SCO wins, our clients lose. so, we've invested in SCO, so that we all don't lose big, regardless how it turns out" ...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
Your post is a dup.
I'm gonna miss SCO and Darl McBride. They've kept me laughing and entertained on a daily basis. I mean, where else can you get a company that drags IBM to court and demands that they prove their case for them. Or contends that the GPL is unconstitutional. I mean, these guys are the comic relief of the computer industry.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
I bet you're a huge hit at parties.
Do you correct all the "chicken crossed the road" jokes too?
"Actually, though very few people know this, biologically speaking, chickens lack the cognitive processes necessary to cross the road under the aforementioned circumstances. See the research done by Smoot and Hawley, 1934.... blaw blaw mumble mumble..."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
David Boies and his fellow Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP lawyer Mark Heise are SCO's attorneys in this case, but the software company was represented in a court skirmish last week in Utah between SCO and IBM Corp. byDarl McBride's brother Kevin. Kevin McBride, according to West Legal Directory, has a private practice in nearby Park City, Utah, where he specializes in litigation and appeals, not corporate-contract or intellectual-property law.
Makes things even more fishy. Looks like the McBride family is going to make out nicely either way, SCO wins Darl gets a big payout, Kevin gets a cut of attorney fees, SCO looses and Kevin still gets a cut from the contingency plan.
Also to reference Linux as being a derivitave of the "older operating system" Unix is wrong on a couple points. First has already been pointed out, Linux is designed to work like Unix but was not in any way derived directly from its source, which is actually what SCO is trying to claim in the first place. Also, the article fails to mention that the "older operating system" Unix is what SCO's primary buisness was based on originally.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
So, there is/are some large investor(s) that suddenly excersised huge financial instruments, exposing the RBOC to USD$50M in potential losses, should SCOX increase in value?
This is the only rationalle that I can think of, for a big bank to buy SCOX; banks are typically not big risk takers.
I wonder if there is any way to discover who bought "Call" options on SCOX from the Royal Bank? Perhaps some investor whose name starts with M? Maybe it didn't take a rocket scientist corporate finance guy to figure out how to force an "independent" third party to buy a big chunk of SCOX, if you don't want to do it personally...
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
It was a simple typo, the agreement is a "20 cent contingency" not "20-per-cent contingency".
or, at least that what I heard:)
My lobster friend has much vasoline. Grab his shlong and rub it long, grab his schlong and rub it long.
Nice edit job!
It loses you no money
I don't understand what you wrote. But you seem to be saying that short-selling is low-risk, which is totally wrong.
Here's how short-selling works:
You expect a stock to go down in price. You borrow some shares of the stock, and sell them. Then at a predetermined date, you must buy the stocks back, and return the shares to whomever loaned them to you. If you sell at $16 per share, and buy back at $10 per share, you get to keep $6 per share, less any fees (you need to pay whomever loaned you the shares).
But if you buy at $16, then Darl announces that SCO actually owns South America and the stock price goes up to $26, when it's time to buy back the stock shares you need to pay $10 per share.
If you simply buy some stock, the worst thing that can happen is that the stock devalues to zero, and you lost all the money you spent on the stock. With short-selling, if the stock price unexpectedly soars, you can lose vast sums of money in a hurry. Buy-and-hold is much safer than short-selling.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
That means that some clienta has made a huge investment in Linux/IBM. So, should SCO win the case, what they loose from that deal they make up by owning 20% of SCO.
Or it's simply a M$ front end.
When I read this article yesterday evening, I had exactly the opposite reaction. I thought, heh, someone at the G&M really has it in for SCO and is letting it show ;)
Funny thing is, I was looking at the exact same chunk of text:
"SCO has admitted that its action is designed to shore up sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived."
"SCO has admitted" -- admission implies wrongdoing
"that its action is designed to shore up" -- "designed" sounds like it's a conniving plan (as in "designing women," "he has designs on the young maiden" etc, and "shore up" is what you do in the face of imminent disaster.
"sagging sales" -- sag, sag, sag
"by wringing revenue" -- SKUH-WEEEZE
"out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived." -- sounds disdainful. Like saying "the ox-cart, an older vehicle from which modern cars are derived."
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
1."...Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived."
This is extremely poorly worded. Isn't this precisely a contention of SCO that is hardly widely accepted?
2."SCO had been pressuring the courts to force IBM to reveal its Unix and Linux source code..."
The author apparently does not know that IBM has already "revealed" its Linux source code, since the code is freely available under the GPL.
RBC just bought a lottery ticket. Odds are slim but the possible profit is huge, so why not risk it? Whats $50M to a bank? Hell if I had a couple mil kicking around I might buy some stock just in case something happens... after all in a country where people vote for one president and the supreme court picks another ANYTHING can happen!
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out the RBC invested in SCO because they had a bunch of their computers running Linux and didn't want to run foul of the $699 licensing fee? $699 in American currency per CPU. That like equals Canada's entire money supply! (joke!)
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
The largest bank in Canada, I had no idea they'd invested in SCO.
Time to move my bank account to Bank of Montreal I suppose. =(
"The linux infadels have stolen SCO's code."
"God will roast their stumachs in hell at the hands of Darl McBride."
"Lying is forbidden at SCO. Darl McBride will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. "
""We are winning!""
Quotes for the SCO Information Minister
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Have you tried shorting this? It's impossible to borrow.
The way short-selling really works is that you 'borrow' stock from your broker (and he might 'borrow' it from other clients). There are around ~4M shares 'out there' (from ~13M issued)and 1.6M of them are shorted...
Is it me, or does the SCO logo look like a blue Mickey Mouse silouette wrapped over a red ball?
Might be a metaphor about their business operations.
The grandparent asks why people aren't selling - indicating that they should as the price is going down.
And he's modded insightful. I wonder why he thinks the price is going down if it's not because people are selling.
BM scored a surprise legal victory in that court case when a judge ruled on Friday in favour of IBM in SCO's trade-secret violation lawsuit against the computing giant.
SCO had been pressuring the courts to force IBM to reveal its Unix and Linux source code so SCO could prove that IBM was using stolen code. But the judge ruled that SCO would have to present its own Unix source code first and identify which software code had been stolen.
This was a surprise? Are these people paying attention? Do they have any understanding of the law? Do they do any research outside of the SCO press releases?
How long has this issue been discussed on Slashdot and Groklaw? How long has IBM's motion been out? And this is a surprise?
Frankly, the only surprise here is that anyone trusts these bozos with their money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=v1
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
you win!
they are under a DDos as we speak
// Empires come and go we live forever
This investment isn't as speculative as it might first appear. RBS have $30M worth of preferred convertible shares. They can happily short against these to reduce their risk, lock in some cash profits, then as long as SCO doesn't go bust they collect 30% interest over 4 years. This deal has been set up so that BayStar and RBC will at least get their money back, even if SCO rapidly goes bust, and they do very very well if SCO hangs on for 3 years.
This is the only way junk like SCOX can get cash funding.
Yahoo story
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc., (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) the owner of the UNIX operating system, today confirmed that on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 at approximately 4:20 a.m. Mountain Time, it experienced a large scale distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. The attack caused the company's Web site (www.sco.com) and corporate operational traffic to be unavailable during the morning hours including e-mail, the company intranet, and customer support operations. The company's Web site remains unavailable while this DDoS attack continues to take place. The company is working with its Internet Service Provider to restore www.sco.com to legitimate Internet users.(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )
Check for yourselves
SCO Experiences Distributed Denial of Service Attack
Wednesday December 10, 3:19 pm ET
Syn Attack Halts Availability to SCO's Internal Operations
# LINDON, Utah, Dec. 10
This specific type of DDoS attack, called a "syn attack," took place when several thousand servers were compromised by an unknown person to overload SCO's Web site with illegitimate Web site requests. The flood of traffic by these illegitimate requests caused the company's ISP's Internet bandwidth to be consumed so the Web site was inaccessible to any other legitimate Web user.
"SCO is working with law enforcement officials and gathering information through mechanisms that we have in place to help us identify the origin of these attacks," said company spokesperson, Blake Stowell. "We deplore these activities by those who try to intimidate or harass legitimate businesses through cyber terrorist tactics while hiding their true identity."
Hope they catch the SOB's who instigated the attack and throw them in jail. As unpopular as SCO is amongst the IT community, this is unforgiveable.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031210/tech_sco_attack_1.h tml
....
link here.
Reuters
SCO said site was attacked, brought down
Wednesday December 10, 3:44 pm ET
SEATTLE, Dec 10 (Reuters) - SCO Group Inc. (NasdaqSC:SCOX - News), the small software maker suing IBM over the use of software code used for the Linux operating system, said on Wednesday its home page was brought down by a hacker attack in the morning.
I KNEW I was a smart cookie for banking with RBC!
waitasec...
SCO HAS MY MONEY!!!!
*sob*
Mixed-feelings-RBC-customer....
So RBC does business with Red Hat...?
Owns stock in IBM is a more likely theory (IMO). Now with stock in both companies, they're covered no matter which way the case goes. (I can't claim this theory--I saw it at Groklaw--but it seems to make sense.)
Sheila: Time's have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Mrs. Cartman: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: Heck NO, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flapping heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Canada's fault!
You will die alone.
They should go into the content business. Sell syndications for the "Daily SCO humor column," make comics with Darl and Boies as the villains, etc. :)
Dear Mr. Pitt:
:8 ,00.as p I have been a SCO
Thank you for your recent correspondence. We at RBC Financial Group
appreciate feedback and welcome the opportunity to address your concerns
about recent reports about RBC's purchase of shares in SCO.
Due to regulatory constraints and issues of client confidentiality, we are
limited to what information may be disclosed in our response. The purchase
of SCO preferred shares for US $30 MM by RBC was disclosed in a routine US
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and is a matter of public
record. The investment was made to hedge economic exposure resulting from
client related transactions.
Thank you for taking the time to write and for sharing your comments with
us.
RBC Royal Bank
Customer Relations Centre
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
-----------------
From: richard @pacdat.net
Posted At: 00:58:44.540 10/18/2003
Posted To: RDMNTIBG @rbc.com
Subject: Other
Date : Sat Oct 18 00:52:28 2003
Comments
-------
Please pass this on to the highest level of management. I understand that
the bank has invested money in SCO.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,135671
reseller - prior to its sale to Novell I used to work for a company also
owned in part by the Canopy Group I work with the Linux operating system and
am very conversant with the ongoing dispute between SCO and "the rest of the
world" and am of the opinion that SCO's management are doing what they are
doing for personal gain (note the amount of insider trading that has been
done by them in recent weeks) This investment by Royal Bank is one of the
most stupid things I have ever heard of you doing. The tactics being used by
SCO in their quest for publicity (I can't conceive of them actually gaining
anything in the way of licensing and/or penalties from their suits with IBM
and/or SGI and others) are grandstanding of the first order. I have been a
loyal customer of Royal Bank for almost 20 years but am strongly considering
moving my business just over this one stupid act. For my background, please
see: http://richard.pacdat.net richard
--
--
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.
Ce courrier electronique est confidentiel et protege. L'expediteur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) designe(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier electronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser immediatement, par retour de courrier electronique ou par un autre moyen.
=
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
SCO stock is down a dollar today. Time for another open letter from Darl!
"DDoS takes SCO Site down...
o s_ takes_sco_site_down.html
The site has been down since 4:20 a.m. Mountain Time (11:20 pm GMT) , when it experienced "a large scale distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack," SCO said in a statement. The attack affected the company's web site, e-mail, intranet and customer support operations. SCO said it is working with its Internet Service Provider to restore the site to operation.
SCO is working with law enforcement officials and its ISP to gather information to help identify the origin of these attacks. The company said the DDoS, known as a syn attack, used "several thousand servers (that) were compromised by an unknown person to overload SCO's Web site with illegitimate Web site requests.""
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/12/10/dd
Why is this Redundant? It is a very useful summary, and I can't get to the linked site.
/.?
Perhaps because it's the summary on
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
Someone buys up stock after market hours every night. ESPECIALLY if there has been bad news starting a downward trend. Some of the folks over at Groklaw call this "painting a stock". The usual reason to paint a stock is that insiders want to inflate the value of the stock before doing a massive dump. In this case, SCO's benefactor is seeking to preserve their credibility.
You can expect the stock price to return to somewhere around $16 a share before the week is out. Watch the stock tomorrow morning after trading starts. It will have recovered some value overnight and will spike up until the price lands somewhere between 15 and 16.
Something might be going on. When trying www.sco.com I do get a connection refused. When under heavy load, I would expect a connection time out ... unless course I don't know Jack [flash animation] about HTTP ;-)
Evert
I hear Darl's sister is kinda cute.
yeah she rolls her hair into buns on each side of her head, which makes great handles
The only good news I could garner from this all was that the bank has made this investment only to hedge their bets, i.e. they do not have the ulterior motives that a MS or Sun would have. Hopefully it also implies that they may not be willing to pour in more money without a reasonable possibility to recoup their investment.
My guess is that the SCO circus will be in town for a while. Such legal proceedings I imagine, have the potential to drag on forever, and especially so given that it is in SCOs best interest to keep dragging it for as long as they possibly can.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
I can see your example if it is only $1.
$50 million seems like an awful lot of money to gamble that way on. Particularly when any amount of research would have shown that SCO was unlikely to even have a case.
The SCO execs have been dumping stock ever since the price went up. That doesn't sound like people who really think they have a chance of winning this case.
SCO has made a number of really bizarre claims that it never followed through with. SCO also has problems naming companies that it claims purchased licenses.
When you buy a lottery ticket, you know that there is money that is earmarked for that payoff.
With this case, you don't even know that.
I just wonder ... Let's make the assumption that the SCO stock completely collapses right now. How many billion $ Darl and his friends would have won in this pathetic affair ? (putting aside the send-to-jail-with-their-enron-friends hypothesis)
--
Go Debian!!!
So, Daryls brother is involved in the case too? I knew he made an appearance at the last court setting when SCO was told to produce the code in 30 days, but didnt realize he was officially on the legel team. It makes sense. Use company money for a legel defense team that includes your family. Your family makes instant money, which can be funneled back to you in various ways over time, directly or indirectly. Who says SCO needs to win the final cases against IBM, Redhat, etc. Just spend all the shareholder money on legel fees for lawyers going to your family, extending trials and motions for as long as your can, and keep paying the lawyers (family). Even if SCO looses, liquidates, does a chapter 7,9,11 etc, the mcbrides still make out like a bandit. Ingenious I tell you. It doesnt matter if they hit the big jackpot, by then al the money is milked into personal family anyways. And if they do win, then it wont matter that all that money was milked for personal gain, as they will have a new source of income. Either way, Mcbride family is the one who wins.
Who has everything to lose if Linux does great, and doesn't want bad PR with the geek crowd...
You don't hedge with a bet on the same horse.
And exactly WHERE is fuckedcompany.com during all of this?
Asleep at the wheel again. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The parent post is good, so far as it goes, but there is an important point it did not emphasize.
If you buy a stock for $10 and sell it for $20, you make $10 (ignoring time value.) It doesn't matter (except psychologically) if the stock dropped to $1 in the interim.
On the other hand, if you short a stock at $10 and it rises to $20, you have a big problem, even if the stock later drops to $1. The reason is that the stock borrowing mentioned by the parent requires collateral ("margin") - that's cash, for the likes of you and me. Your broker will mark your position every day and make margin calls when necessary.
The bit about predetermined dates is a bit misleading, because you can always close your position early if you can find a seller. You can also extend your short if you can find another lender.
Finally, some people have suggested buying a put instead of shorting the stock. That won't work because A) there are no exchange-traded SCO puts, and B) no market maker will sell an OTC put if they can't hedge (by short-selling.)
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
If RBC wanted to hedge against massive exposure to pro Linux businesses, they wouldn't support a company that actively undermines those businesses. The appropriate course of action would be to crush SCO using dirty tricks, backroom deals and political power. The hedge would properly be implemented through some kind of option to buy SCO stock at a certain price from someone.
A cash salary is a compensation expense, but stock is a capital expense and is seen in diluted ownership and market indicators like earnings per share. It certain does matter to shareholders, especially if the lawyers get preferred stock or there is a bankruptcy.
From what I've seen repeatedly, Linux was derived from Minix, and later BSD/old AT&T code. Not SCO's or Tarantella's or anyone's Unix.
Isn't this what the whole case is about? Nice of the writer to confirm what is actually in dispute.
This is so absurd that it's increasing an already bad headache.
I'm gonna close my account there :(
THEN they would have to prove that ownership.
The thing is, Linus (And hence the Linux kernel effort) has detailed records of what came from whom (and therefore from where). SCO has no such records except the vague statement that "whatever we (sco) have we own."
If there is common code, and Linus can prove who provided it to him (e.g. who wrote it), and SCO cannot prove even the first records of who provided the code to *them*, then guess who legally possessess "proof of ownership."
See the word Provenance (which usually applies to "fine art"). Lets say I walked up to you with a genuine Picasso, proveably genuine, if I can't provide the chain of ownership that demonstrates that it is mine to sell to you, you would be a fool to buy it.
The same basic features apply to the (mis-named) intellectual property issues. If SCO demonstrates that there is code in common between something they claim to own and the Linux kernel, they will need to be able to make a stronger claim of ownership than that made by the OS community.
This is the basis of the ATT vs BSD settlement. In that case BSD was more pursuasive in their ownership of the disputed text because they had the original copyright notices that included the names of the authors, and they had the authors right there saying "yep" I wrote that under X cirsumstances. ATT was in the SCO position of just having some program text in a bunch of files, no attributable authors and no copyright notices.
The point is, SCO has produced no proof because they have none. They are (probably) hoping to release whatever confluence of code they may have as close to closing arguments as possible, on the grounds that such material would apear to stand on merrit. They *cannot* release that data because the very presence of submission and aproval-for-inclusion records kept in the linux project system (BitKeeper et al) is, by definition, "more pursuasive" than any straight claim.
We saw how fast the one example that got out was debunked. By this time SCO is hoping to do a drive-by submission-of-evidence. That never works. 8-)
Guessing that they have some kind of case is very bad. The simple fact that they havn't produced a single spesific instance of (provenanced) code in the process of pursuing thier case, is rather indicitive.
Remember that in civil cases there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It is purely "proponderance of evidence." In a civl matter it is *ONLY* a question of who has "more and more credible" evidence.
"incredible" evidence and clames are, by definition, useless.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Why are you complaining ? Score 0, Informative seems appropriate.
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
The company, based in Lindon, Utah, has claimed that parts of the Linux operating system, which is open-source software and requires no licence fee, has been copied from the Unix operating system. It started demanding licence fees from users of some versions of Linux, payments that potentially total-billions of dollars.
SCO has admitted that its action is designed to shore up sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived. SCO said it is able to pursue copyright-infringement charges after receiving registrations for its copyrights from the U.S. Copyright Office.
SCO Group is headed by CEO Darl McBride. David Boies and his fellow Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP lawyer Mark Heise are SCO's attorneys in this case, but the software company was represented in a court skirmish last week in Utah between SCO and IBM Corp. byDarl McBride's brother Kevin. Kevin McBride, according to West Legal Directory, has a private practice in nearby Park City, Utah, where he specializes in litigation and appeals, not corporate-contract or intellectual-property law.
Nice to see he's getting family involved. That reminds me...
I just saw the South Park episode about the mormon kid that moves into town (a couple weeks late, I know). Listening to the story about how the mormon church came about, I could not help but think about SCO's lawsuit.
One bit in particular that reminds me of this is when Mr. Harris's wife takes the translated "testament", locks it away, and asks for another translation that should be identical if it's real - so Joseph Smith gets all pissed off ("God" gets angry) and gives him another translation, but it's "not identical but on the same basic line."
More info about the origins of mormonism
Reading the above page only solidifed my view that mormon belief has at least something to do with the workings of SCO as of late.
In short, if and when the SCO code is revealed, check those modification dates! I'm damn sure they'll try to pull something like copying entire files out of the linux kernel, putting them into their code and then saying "See? They copied entire files from our UNIX code!"
Just another freak in the freak kingdom.
/. is filled with some of the worst business, stock, or economic advise. Even far, far worse than its legal advise.
A rush of people shorting a stock, drive the price down, because of all the people selling. Nobody is going to take a long position purely to loan it out. The reward is too small to enter. Even if they did, the buy would be conteracted by the short sale that soon followed (soon as in on the order of hours or maybe a day) netting no extra bid or ask pressure.
There is also a practice called a naked short, meaning shorting without having the stock in the first place, creating a negative position. This is effectively what happened to COCO the other day. 3,000,000 shares were sold that the trader didn't have. The trading software, noticing it had a deficit, had to start buying to fill the hole.
Now, a short squeeze is then a trade has a short position and the price begins to rise. The creates a loss in his position and he will have to buy stock to exit, driving up the price. This can happen in mass, as many people who thought a stock would fall short it, but new information enters the market and everybody is squeezed, buying to cover and squeezing others even more. This gets worse when a trader is heavily leveraged on margin (meaning, their broker loaned them the cash to make the trade). The broker will ask for some repayment to keep your account from going too far negative, forcing a trader to exit the position even if he doesn't want to.
This happens when the short interest is high. This isn't happening to SCOX. The time to cover (meaning, the the average daily volume for a stock divided by the number of outstanding short sales) is still measured in a few days. When it gets to weeks, then there will be a problem getting SCOX to short.
I have checked and it isn't too difficult to get SCOX to short if you want to. I have no position in it either way and will not.
The following is a scene from a new DVD I am planning on calling 'The SCO Files', starring Ron Jeremy...and Jenna Jameson. It shows exactly what the RBC is thinking. If you steal my idea I will sue you! This is good copyrighted shit!
RBC:What the f*** do you mean SCO is f***ed. Oh my god, I need a f***ing drink. GET ME A DRINK...NOW!
Analyst:Uhhh...We did some more research and found the whole SCO case full of holes. They can't even figure out what to accuse IBM of stealing. The computer code we were shown was a fabrication. We were tricked. We assumed SCO was using some flim flam, but thought they had at least something to extort the Linux community with. But as it turns out, devout Mormons can't tell a decent lie.
RBC: We gave them 50 f***ing million dollars! We have to get out of this, or the board is going to crucify me. Bob, what can we do?
Bob:Let me turn to my manual on pure evil...lets see. Page 52, Getting out of a Contract Through Slime, Sabatoge and Compromising Photographs. Yes...here it is. Lets sabatoge the Boise team, they must know by now they won't get paid anyway, they didn't even bother to show up at the last court appearance. A little kick and they will gladly leave. We can screw up their payment deal, thus nullifying their contract with SCO. It will appear in the press like SCO is another Enron if their attorney bails out. And that will be enough for us to stop payment on our $50 million check. And we can claim fraud if they demand payment. Once we pull out we contact our good golfing buddy, the Attorney General of Delaware. He still owes you $50 from that last round of golf...and oh yes, how you got him elected.
RBC: Excellent.EXCELLENT
Bob: One more thing...guards, take this analyst away, permanently.
Analyist: Nooo..NOOOOOOO...NOOOOOOOOOOOO
Bob: OK. Now all we need is a hooker to photograph with Darl McBride. Bring in the first applicant. [enter Jenna Jameson]
My signature doesn't work! How am I ever going to get a /. rating without a clever sig?
: What Constitution?
Is there a DDOS on against sco.com, or did they just all the sudden diwsappear from the face of the earth in light of what has happened the last few days (weeks).
Well, this seems to explain why Boies did not show up for court on Friday. So recap sco's week so far:
- Cannot pay lawyer (who has been thier meal ticket so far BTW)
- Shows up to court with CEO's brother in tow (which leads Wall St. to comment on how brilliant Boies in for not showing up and thereby confusing IBM...so much for that idea...)
- Gets ass kicked to hell and back by IBM.
- Issues a poorly worded and thought out debacle on how the GPL is going to ruin the free world.
- Gets ass kicked by Wall St.
- Wakes up on the moring after to find that thier biggest public investor has put PAID on the tab in a big way.
So now they cannot sell, cannot pay BOies et. al. and cannot run the "We Own Linux!" flag up the pole.
I propose we put Darl in the Deathpool.
So what DID happen to sco.com today?
(this post was not spell checked..I know I cannot spell, so don't bother...)
not really, but that's just media ignorance
full story here
I'm glad to see the miami herald is on top of the latest cyber-security trends.
This is a software development company..../> we're trying to <choking /> INNOVATE </mcBride>
<vader>And if this is a software development company then WHERE are the programmers?</vader>
Mendes was off revolutionizing bowling with an automatic pinspotter with 95 moving parts (the MM-2000). RBC decided to close 'em down.
At least Qubica has the hardware now, so folks looking for alternatives to the AMF 82-90XL (cloned by chinese as well at VIA and Yangii) and Brunswick gsX can still get it.
Royal Bank of Canada is very conspicuous and public. They hold a lot of people's accounts. I think it is tyme tyo start a protest/boycott of RBC until they change the way SCO does business. Hopefully by making McBridge a junior chambermaid apprentice.
All that I know is that according to Netcraft, the RBC website runs a mix of HPUX and AIX.
I think you all mean "Boies".
Sorry, OT, I know.