Slashdot Mirror
SCO - What have WE Forgotten?
"Over the last eight months I have read countless posts on Slashdot regarding SCO and most if not all of the posts view the scene with rose-tinted spectacles. Promises are made that SCO will be buried and that McBride will find himself in prison, yet they are still there and McBride is still in charge. The men and women who play the stock market on a regular basis are no fools and something unknown to Slashdot readers made the SCO stock price rise by 2.4%, on December 26th, over half a days trading. If someone buys a stock they expect the price to rise, so what have WE forgotten that could be good news for SCO investors? The principle of 'many eyes' has been used by the Open Source movement before. Thousands of people examine source code, submit patches, and ensure that we give the best software we can to the community at large. Bugs are announced and fixed within hours and all of us know that this methodology provides a better solution than that offered by closed source products. We now need to apply the same methodology to the SCO problem, all of us need to consider what we know about this sorry affair and how we can legally contribute to the downfall of the SCO Group.
SCO have been ordered to produce their evidence against IBM by midnight on January 11th, 2004. This gives us [five days] to make sure that when the IBM lawyer marches into court he has a spring in his step, knowing that he has every Linux user on the planet behind him. THEN we can talk about SCO being buried, but not before.
Thank you for your time and a Happy New Year."
Trouble is, you can also find 100 investments that looked just like the great bargain-basement opportunities, but went from low-valued to zero-valued during the same year. Nobody knows for sure which ones are which until after the fact. Some people are better at guessing than others; those people go on to be successful mutual fund managers, but even the successful ones get it wrong a lot of the time. They keep making money because they have their funds spread out over a lot of stocks, not because they have crystal balls in their closets.
Here's an interesting fact: Very few stock funds, even the successful ones, outperform market indexes over the long term. Lots of high-profile funds do really well for a year or five but then have a lousy year or two and lose all their gains relative to the market as a whole.
If you want to build wealth trading stock in public companies, history says the most successful strategy is to buy a wide, diverse portfolio. Keep buying into it over time, whether the market is up or down ("dollar cost averaging.") Then ignore the people who happen to get lucky on a particular stock pick -- because you know if you try to do that, you're much more likely to end up broke than rich.
Besides, the SCO might get somewhere. After all, they've got Sen. Orrin Hatch (R. Utah) looking out after them. He's got to keep his son employed somehow.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
I personally find it hard to believe that there are NO skeletons in the Linux kernel closet. That is perhaps one of the advantages of closed source. Deeper closets...
that this whole SCO thing is a lot like the .com fiasco. The craze may still be pumping those stocks, but we all know it's eventually going to burst. This is no different.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
-- Cheers,
-- RLJ
You're assuming that stock prices reflect the "value" of a company - they don't. Investors aren't often all that smart and a bit of media buzz is often enough to make them invest. Media buzz != sound financial investment.
The fact that SCO is listing higher is an indictment on the mentality of investors not a reflection of the soundness of their legal case.
It doesn't mean anybody has 'missed' anything, just that the people that invest in SCO are not doing so based on the technical or legal merits of its lawsuit.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
to short 1000 shares of SCOX...Thanks for the reminder!
WTF? Over?
Come now, the stock market is legalized gambling these days. It's a nice easy way to invest in a company. Investments are risks. The stock buyers are taking the risk that SCO is successful. I mean, what if they were? Certainly their stock would be worth probably what? 1000x current with actual Linux licensing fees?
Hell, do you know anyone who wouldn't take 1000 to 1 odds when the American legal system is involved?
In many cases (especially with tech stocks), stock price has *nothing* to do with how well or badly a company is doing. In fact, if a company gets a lot of press, which SCO has, it often causes a lot of people to buy the stock, which in turn causes the stock price to go up. Was there really any good reason to be investing in the company? Probably not. Another example of an over-inflated tech stock, that will probably crash like so many other have.
We have forgotten to be humble.
We have forgotten not to act like those who we dislike.
We have forgotten to take the high road.
And this includes letters and statement from leaders in the community, as much as ACs on Slashdot.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
First off, wonderful submission. It's well-written, well-meaning, and helpful.
t han-we-do dept.', the implication is that things work differently in the stock market. That's sort of the case, but not entirely.
Now, are things different on Wall Street?
I trade stocks for a living. Some of it is daytrading. from the category Cliff chose, 'from the daytraders-and-lawyers-live-on-different-planets-
The key issue here is potential; *if* SCO wins, it'll win $3B plus leverage vs every single linux user (if collectable, $699/installation for single-cpu installations, more for more processors; also $39(?) per embedded device). The payoff is huge and Wall Street functions on potential and leverage.
What does this imply (or explain) about SCOX and said stock price?
I once read an insightful quip in an investment article about SCO; the quip was 'Buying SCOX is like buying a lottery ticket'. Meaning, there's a huge potential payoff but, chances are, you'll get nothing. The SCOX stock price, hence, is an average of the perception of those two extremes.
2 years from now, SCOX will either be worth $100+/share or $0/share.
In conclusion, the rising stock price is a function of Wall Street's perception of the odds of this lottery ticket.
RD
Actually, they've been ordered to state their complaints against IBM; evidence comes later.
Also, their deadline isn't midnight the 11th: as with all such legal matters, it's COB (17:00 local) on the deadline or the first Court day (the 12th) following it. The Clerk of the Court's receipt of the response is the magic timestamp, and the Clerk isn't going to wait up to midnight on a Sunday in the hopes that soon Darl will be there.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
1) Legal wrangling always has some uncertainty involved. If SCO has a 10% chance of winning the case, they get $1 billion. A 2 Billion billion dollar settlment times .1 is 200 Million, which is around
their market cap.
2) Let say that investors fall into 2 categories, people of the opinion that SCO will win, and people who are of the opinion that SCO will lose.
The first set buy SCO stock, thinking their investment will pay of 10x. If they're wrong, they'll lose the investment. The second class of investors have to short sell the stock, especially since options don't seem to be available.
The second class of investors have a much worse situation. They can double their money, but if SCO wins, they could lose a great deal of money, in theory there's no limit. What's worse is that if there's a legal victory, the stock is likely to spike, making the possibility of cutting your losses before they get too bad difficult. The current trend is also discouraging. The stock has been slowly gaining value over the months. This would mean a short seller will have to keep pumping money into their initial investment, waiting for the moment when SCO's stock crashes.
If you fall into the second camp, I think the risk is just to vast and the payout too far away for people to jump on.
OTOH, buying puts looks like a much better deal, but they don't seem to be availible.
Everyone's forgotten what SCO is actually suing IBM for. It's not copyright violation. It's not patent violations. It's a contract violation.
The crux of the matter, as I understand it, is that SCO is claiming that the SystemV contract specifies that they retain control over everything developed for SysV Unix -- regardless of who actually does the development. If you want to kick this back into copyright law (which is likely to become relevant), then they're saying that whatever you made is a derivative work. Even though you may license the SysV code it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with derivative works.
There's a shitload of smokescreening going on, and SCO has made some really amazingly stupid claims (mostly their execs, not their lawyers, although the lawyers have made some stupid claims as well), but it really does get back to this -- is SCO's read on the contract the proper one? It's not a cut and dried answer. The contracts are very old, have passed through many hands, and have several court cases associated with them. The wording isn't clear either.
Personally, I still think SCO's smoking a big crack rock -- their interpretation of the contract is overly broad and utterly insane. But IANAL.
A coworker (ok... technically my boss) asked me yesterday when I expected the lawsuit to be resolved. I immediately replied 5-10 years.
Anyone who thinks that this is going to be finished before then is smoking one right along with SCO.
It is not very far-fetched to assume that SCO's tactics have been almost solely targetted at boosting their shareholder value. This year might be different however. If SCO doesn't come up with concrete irrefutable evidence to support their claims they might end up hurting the very shareholders they have been trying to appease.
Unless...they get taken over by some bigger company with an eye on the pie they have baking...
What I'm trying to get at is that with a market capitalization of merely 250 million and with the intellecual property claims they are making they are begging for IBM or (maybe even) Microsoft to buy them out.
Far fetched? Probably. But imagine if the SEC & the European regulators were to allow such a thing to happen?
(just remember where you heard it first)
Remember BRE-X?
9 7. htm
http://geology.about.com/cs/mineralogy/a/aa0420
You could have made a mint on it if you bought in at the right time. The stock went into the $200 plus range, then became worthless over a period of a week.
History repeats itself.
My rights don't need management.
Mark my words! After SCO gets slapped around in court, Darl & Co. dumps their shares, SCO's stock price plummets, and stakeholders get all pissed off, this will end up one of the worst (and most publicized) corporate scams in recent memory.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
This is not strictly speaking a pump and dump. I call what SCO is doing "pump and squeeze". SCO is very thinly traded. That means most shares of SCOX are held by insiders and institutional funds. Only a small amount of stock is being sold on the open market. Small buys and sells of the stock move its price wildly. This means SCO can't just dump their shares on the market and make a killing. The price would drop too rapidly for them to move it all at a good price. What insiders can do is register planned sales of stock with the SEC and time their press releases to shortly proceed those sales. This allows them move chunks of stock at the high rate. Anytime the price dips too low for public consumption or a planned sale, they can make another outrageous announcement and pump it back up. The longer they have to unload their stock, the better this works. This is why they do everything humanly possible to delay the IBM and RedHat suits. Either one of those coming to a quick finish would destroy the pump before it finishes extracting money from the market.
They can also use the paper value of the stock as collateral to buy things. This seemed to work best by their buying Vultus (another Canopy Group company). In this way, they can allow the Canopy Group to show real profits with real money even though its really the Canopy Group shuffling things around. It would be risky for them to acquire outside companies this way since it would expose their scheme to more parties who either want their cut or sue them as well.
I think the core of the question is not stock value, but is there something about the overall situation that we are missing. Is there something that we are overlooking that might lead to a "gotcha" by McBride and crew that we can prevent now.
That is a question well worth pondering.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
...SCO's stock is now more overvalued than a startup in Sunnyvale that plans to revolutionise the world of garden gnome retailing by harnessing the power of this new Internet thingy.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
SCO has had a lot of press releases that apparently have nothing to do with the case. They sued IBM for breach of contract and copyright infringement. "Lots of Unix code has gone into Linux." That is the file system JFS, NUMA and RCU, and some SMP stuff.
JFS was originally written for AIX, then rewritten from scratch for OS/2, and then ported to both AIX and Linux. So it's the OS/2 version we have in Linux now. I can't see how SCO is going to pull this, and I don't think they know themselves. If the court decides SCO owns the rights to JFS, it would be like IBM worked for SCO under a slave contract (do slaves have contracts?). Everything that touches Unix would be the property of SCO. They would never sell another license if that happened -- if the GPL is viral, SCO's license would be alienesque (like Ridley Scott's Alien, that is).
So SCO is threatening everyone else too. They want $3.50. I mean $699. If anything that has touched Unix in some way is their code, the fact that IBM has dumped some such code into Linux would make Linux their code too. So the case is absurd. Or it seems to be. It looks like Nigerian scam-spam: It's far too good to be true (for SCO's investors: if they win, they own the world), and it probably isn't. But with the media coverage SCO gets, at least some people will be stupid enough to buy stock.
In the meantime, maybe SCO actually has a few extra cards up their asses^H^H^H^H^Hsleaves, and maybe they actually have a case. But it's not the same case they play through the media.
It is incorrect to assume that all investors in the stock market -- or even a majority of them -- are making decisions based on sound data.
There is one theory that is widely regarded in the investment world, usually called the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It states that the stock market is efficient, that at any given time all public factors relating to a given issue (company) have been considered by intelligent investors and that the price of a company's stock always accurately reflects the value of the underlying business.
The problem with this theory is that it is utter nonsense. People buy companies based on all manner of crazy metrics: whether a certain football team won, a company seeming like a "sure bet," or some charlatan hawking the latest penny issue (that he purchased in large quantity before making the recommendation.) And price, by the way, is determined by supply and demand.
Now, that might make for a very boring story, but it is relevant in the following manner: there is another valuation model that more accurately reflects the way the stock market actually works.
It's called the Greater Fool Theory.
The definition of the Greater Fool Theory has changed over time, but a current definition is: a fool buys a stock without any sound fundamental analysis hoping to sell it at a profit to a greater fool, who expects in turn to sell it at a profit to a still greater fool. Rinse and repeat.
SCO may well have a case. I really don't know, but you all had better believe that the Greater Fool Theory played a big role in SCO's meteoric rise.
But what if whoever is behind this actually wants SCO to lose? Might an IBM victory actually be engineered to be Pyrrhic for Linux?
Consider that both SCO's case and the GPL revolve around the notion of derived work which is legally up for grabs. Might SCO's claim -- that all things UNIX belong to them as derived works -- get laughed out of court in a way that actually weakens the somewhat similar provisions of the GPL?
What if the goal was to downgrade the GPL to a legal equivalent of LGPL or even BSD? (The GPL hopes to make "linking" a criterion for "derived". Is SCO trying or even in a position to make such a claim and get it struck down? I don't know.)
Yes, I realize the situations are different (contract law here, copyright law there), and this hardly explains the investor frenzy on SCO. Still maybe worth keeping in mind...
Indeed, perhaps we need to remember Enron and many other companies. High stocks for quite awhile, even stayed up despite many whisperings of problems, and finally plummeting down to nothing. It wasn't because any of these companies had something special, they just acted like they did and allowed others to fall for what they though was "easy money"
Let's take a different approach and assume that if SCO wins its case, everybody will stop using Linux. At that point, SCO will be worth its cash on hand. Ignoring whatever it needs to shell out to lawyers and Satan, $3B in cash would give a $3B book value and a $3B market cap since they would have no revenue. In that case, their current market cap is 1/12 of that, so the market is giving them a 1/12 chance of winning. That's a lot better than the 0.005 probability, but I still feel much better being on the 11/12 side.
Disclaimer: this are back-of-the envelope calculations. Please do your own math before drawing any conclusions and please share the results here.
Clearly investors are not blind to SCO's situation. They are a sinking ship and are trying to rescue themselves anyway they can. Indeed, I believe from the beginning, their strategy was to try and convince IBM that buying SCO was the cheapest solution. I say this because these type of investors are not interested in a long drawn out court battle. It will take ten years to sort all this out, which is far to long for the typical large investor.
Furthermore, evidence to the buy me so I do not hurt you tactic can be found in overtures that have made towards Goggle. Simply put, Goggle is looking at $10+ billion dollar IPO which could be severely harmed by a lingering intellectual property lawsuit from SCO. So what does SCO hope Google will do? Why buy them with some pre-IPO shares and end all the legal problems. Guess who makes out incredibly well the day of the IPO by selling their shares?
Other than picking a fight with IBM, they have done nothing but post press release and send letters to create FUD in the market. So what to do? Get back to work, ignore SCO. Do what go us here in the first place -- write code, solve problems, use Linux, and plan world domination
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
Livecharts SCOX Values Check out the detailed quote and add a volume study. Insiders own about 45% Institutions about 31% That only leaves 24% laying around to trade. Volume is really low. Looking at the time and sales for the past few weeks there have been almost no large block trades. With so little trading volume it's probably relatively easy to keep the price up. We'll see what happens with the institutionals after the 11th of Jan.
Here are some rather random thoughts:
;-)
- patience. "we" keep forgetting to be patient
- focus. "we" got baffled with bullshit alright
- history. "we" should have *started* with looking into the USL/BSDi case. That's where it'll end and it was very predictable.
- agendas. "we" are stupid to follow the "ememy of enemy equals friend" idea. Distrust Novell. Distrust IBM. Trust me on this
But most importantly, IMHO "we" forgot "our" role in all this. "We" played right into SCOs hand with the endless detail delving. No one but "us" cares. All they see is freaky commie geeks. Of course Darl knew and knows that. He made "us" jump on command. People have rightfully called him the comic relief but to most outsiders so are "we".
So what then? Here's something: sit and wait, perhaps document what happened when if you feel the need to. Write a book about it, someone will (please don't let that be JonKatz or ESR).
The article is predicated on the assumption that the stock price means something about the fundementals of the company. I'd say a comment on the realities of speculative investing is on-topic.
The author was just using SCOs stock as an indicator that the company is not going to lose the court case like everyone else assumes will happen.
My opinion: If that's the case, the author is an idiot. This whole situation shows the signs of a textbook pump-and-dump manuever. The fact that Linux was chosen as a bogus legal target is fairly irrelevant other than the fact that MS may have been involved with encouraging that decision. IBM is far larger and more powerful than both SCO and Microsoft put together. If they thought they stood a chance of losing, they would have just bought SCO outright.
My prediction: In the end, this whole thing will backfire on the evil men who started this mess. Linux will be championed not only as a victor, but as an unstoppable force. SCO will wither and die for lack of a workable business model. MS will continue to lose the PR war against OSS.
Sidenote: It is not ethical to invest in an unethical company just because their sleazy tactics are causing a temporary stock rise.
Presuming that this is a legitimate question and is not just someone doing a Kevin McBride impression... Go to the Yahoo SCOX message list and ask this question instead. Rather than being called a phallus smoking teabagger, you will get decent answers from people who understand stock manipulation and how it is performed. And stock manipulation is exactly what SCOX is. As for your whinging about not having a new speedboat, stop it: it's irritating.
We have forgotten that the stock market has its own rules.
There are many reasons why SCOX is rising this year. One has been mentioned a couple times already: The lottery ticket theory.
Then, once a stock is rising, it usually drags investors in. Definitely the dumb kind ("oh, it's going up. Must buy"), often the smarter kind, who plan on selling it again as soon as it shows signs of dropping.
Also mentioned already was that SCOX doesn't exactly have a huge volume, so it can be moved by fairly small trades.
And you can bet that Canopy and other investors do everything they can to drive the price up. It is, after all, part of their "net worth".
It all boils down to this: Even if SCO is doomed to fail in the end, from an investment perspective, it can be smart to buy them right until the moment said end starts to happen.
The lawsuit certainly has a much smaller impact than you think. It is easily overshadowed by the press releases and quarterly reports.
Disclaimer: I used to work for a broker, but only for a short time and it's been a while.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think the article is indicating that the stock price hints that there might be more behind the company than what we see in the anti-SCO press. The stock is rising. Is there something that the anti-SCO press is missing about the company? or is it a suckers' bubble?
I tend to take any stock that comes from Provo with a grain of salt. Provo is the MLM capital of the world. Here is another Utah Valley company: The Dream Mine was revealed to a prophet about a hundred years. It is not a traditional mine. The mine actually leads to the hidden vault of treasures buried by the Nephites. FYI, the Nephites were from a lost tribes of Isreal that came to America on a submarine a few thousand years ago. They got all the best treasures. But the Lamanites (American Indians) were horrible sinful creatures. They killed all the Nephites. The Nephites buried all of their treasures before the final battle.
The trick to the mine is that the secret entrance will not be revealed until God is getting ready to smite the gentiles.
This investment is great if you wish to hedge against Armagedden, and the stock tends to do quite well, despite the fact that it won't have a product until the end of the world.
Unfortunately, you have to be of the faith to own stock.
SCO is likely just another dream mine. As mentioned early, the faithful have a long history of falling for every MLM and get rich quick scheme you can name. They often get burned. Of course, if the case comes before a jury of the faithful, SCO will win big time, regardless of the merits of their case.
The Utah Court system is SCO's ace in the hole. If the jury thinks that ruling in favor SCO would make Utah Valley the new Bellevue, then they might rule for SCO. Regardless, I would be worried about shorting SCO or any penny stock from Utah, as Provo Stocks have certain irrational characteristics.
Because trustworthy information of this kind of information normally isn't available, investors make their investment decisions without first looking for "something like Groklaw".
Some investors will think "hmm maybe SCO actually has intellectual property in Linux, in that case their stock is grossly undervalued"... even if they consider the probability of that to be pretty low, it will appear reasonable to them to have a small (in relation to their total portfolio) SCO investment.
Some investors will think "I sure hope that this doesn't work out for SCO because I have investments in companies which will be hurt if GNU/Linux isn't free anymore", and they may decide to buy some SCO stock as part of a risk management strategy (to prevent unacceptable big losses in the case that an SCO victory kills GNU/Linux).
Some investors will think "Those SCO statements sound like utter nonsense to me". These won't buy, but they won't sell either - because they don't have SCO shares, and because "shorting stock", i.e. borrowing shares with a promise to give them back at a later date is difficult (impossible for small-time investors?) and very risky (even if we know that SCO stock will go down in the long run, it is quite possible that they temporarily might go up by say a factor of five for a short period of time before then, and if that's the time when you have to buy because you promised to give back those shares, you lose a *lot* of money).
The above analysis shows two categories of investors who are inclined to buy and one category of investors who are not likely to take any action.
This is consistent with the observed share prices.
What WE forgot was that just because something has no technical merits doesn't mean it can't have some short-term financial merits. The same thing was true of the dot com bubble. Ultimately most of the businesses being developped were nothing stable, and couldn't survive long or turn a profit. That is irrelevant, however, when it comes to 'herd mentality' - because when you get enough people together they are governed by their lowest common faculties - which normally means desire and fear. Even investors who knew that the dot com thing was an artificial bubble would jump on the bandwagon, because if you could get out soon enough, you could really clean up nicely. Likewise, you don't have to believe that SCO has any chance in hell of winning, you just have to gamble on the greed of many other people and hope that it might cause enough noise to get you rich before it bursts.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
It will not backfire on the evil men who started this mess, it will backfire on the idiots who have their (or their clients') money 'invested' in that company when the music stops.
I invest in shares on a fairly minor basis and was so appalled by the boom of the late 90's (Warren Buffett: 'how are these companies ever going to make money?') that I got out altogether for a while. I missed some massive profits - as we probably all have here - but totally missed the subsequent crash as well. I finally started coming back in at the end of 2001.
The problem back then was that shares were vastly overvalued but kept on rising because they were rising. The charts looked great and pension-funds managers who pulled their funds out of these overvalued stocks were sacked shortly afterwards because their funds were underperforming.
Then came the crash and we all got burnt. That is even forgetting companies like Enron or Worldcom.
It even looks to me as though SCO have learnt from those two companies. They are filing their correct figures and their broken business-plan with the SEC. No fraud there. People who invest there will deserve all they get, the only question is the timescale.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
The most important thing about the stock market is that you can sell your shares at any time, for the going rate. This means that it isn't necessary for a company to have any real value at all (in terms of paying dividends) to have a stock that will make you money. SCO has demonstrated that they can impress the market. Even if everybody agrees that SCO will be out of business in 3 years, it's a good bet that SCOX will go up at some point before then.
SCO's chances in court are unrelated to the value of SCOX. SCOX is a good deal at $10 today if it can be sold for $11 some time next week. SCO's PR only matters to the value of SCOX because it matters to the people who might buy SCOX from you later.
You have got to be kidding me.. Look how high the price of stock in .com buisnesses a few years ago.. how long did they last? or how about worldcom's stock? or Enron's?
Investors have a tendancy to fall for hype.
What have we forgotten? How about the fact that SCO releasing EVERYTHING they say on prnewswire where the investors get to see them.
One thing to remember, is that the SCO stock price is based upon absolutely nothing. It even went *up* on the negative news of SCO having to give IBM discovery evidence.
There *are no* fundamentals for this stock.
SCO no longer has a product.
SCO no longer has any customers willing to stick around except for the few who absolutely need legacy software.
SCO has totally blown its future market, c.f., "we view contracts as something to use against our customers"
What has inflated SCOX's price?
1. Market manipulators painting the stock price during low volume.
2. Shills on MSNBC and elsewhere promoting the stock with bad information.
3. Darl & Co's "let's put out a press release every time the stock sags". "Journalists" eat this up and quote them in MSNBC and Forbes.
4. This is the most important one. Short interest. There is so much short interest right now that there are few stocks to be borrowed at all to short. SCOX is shorted up the ass. With no supply of stocks to buy or short, the price gets driven up.
Is the price up because anyone thinks that SCOX has any case against IBM? Nope. The discussion on Yahoo's SCOX bulletin board consists of two sides: pumpers and dumpers. The dumpers usually argue (99 percent of the time) with facts culled from Groklaw and other places. The "strong buys" are nothing but "sound and fury signifying nothing"
Those of you who are kicking yourselves for not buying SCOX in March shouldn't feel left out. This stock is only good for day traders and gamblers. The question is not *whether* the stock will tank, but *when*.
--
BMO
"The time is always now" - Victor
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
In terms of employees, IBM is 6x bigger than Microsoft.
In terms of revenue, IBM is almost 3x bigger than Microsoft.
In terms of revenue per share, IBM is almost 15x bigger than Microsoft.
IBM is the worlds' largest software company, not Microsoft. It's just that IBM bundles their software w. services and hardware.
SCO fails the "Dad's good bet" test MISERABLY--and as such it is NOT a reliable investment (more on that below). It is of course wise to be diligent in looking for any "ace up the sleeve" that SCO may have. However it is too soon after the .com bubble for most to forget that stock price means little to nothing about how well a company operates, and even less about its future prospects.
.com bubble because these companies had NO "STUFF" to back their huge valuations--only business plans, expenses and ad campaigns. They held no real estate, had no inventory, not even significant intellectual property (proprietary software, patents, licensing deals and so on). If a stock looks interesting, make sure it's backed by some TRUE value
My father is recently retired and in the past few years has invested a portion of his savings in stocks, mainly on TSX (Toronto exchange). My father and koreth (author of the parent post) are two of very few people who seem aware of the "interesting fact" regarding stock funds performance against market indeces.
In the stock market, it seems generally to be a VERY BAD IDEA to make investments based heavily on the forecasts on market conditions and the performances of key industres and so on. My dad has had the most long term success by almost completely IGNORING trends forecasts proclaimed by the "experts" and looking at a companies current and past performance vs. its stock valuation. Some criteria are:
1. REAL assets vs capitalisation - Dad never bought into the whole
2. Is the company making money. Dad looks at the whole TSE and on the first pass he drops EVERYTHING that doesn't meed a certain PE ratio as a safe investment, REGARDLESS of what headlines they are making or press releases they are making. Dad didn't get into BRE-X for a reason--they were making headlines about a big gold find but WERE MAKING NO REVENUE YET. The find turned out to be a scam and those who gambled too long lost it all.
3. Do they issue dividends...that is a bonus...and if they do re-invest the dividends they issue back into more of the same stock. You can set it up so essentially you get shares instead of cash and you can avoid brokerage fees.
Pretty simple...and you hold everything you buy until you need to cash out or a periodic review of your investments fails to pass all your criteria. DO NOT let fluctuations in stock price--up OR down--scare you into buying or selling, EXCEPT when said fluctuation causes the stock to move outside the criteria you set as a good investment bet.
Everything else is a gamble--invest your lottery ticket money in it and nothing else.
BTW SCO fails MISERABLY as a safe investment--it fails 1. as its assets are currently next to worthless in comparison to its market valuation--and the only thing that'll change that is winning the IBM case, AND commandeering BSD since Linux users would likely move en-masse to BSD should Linux become expensive and closed. Very inlikely. It fails 2 because it doesn't make NEARLY enough revenue to pass the PE ratio test. AND because if 2. it can't do 3--pay any sort of meaningful dividend.
Actually, we do.
/. could be a ruse to make the linux community overconfident and not look as closely as they should.
I work for an investment bank and IB analysts pull information from EVERY source. What technologists often miss, is that we look at it from a different perspective. Professionals don't care how cool a technology is or how miserable SCO's actions are, they care about the changes in future revenue this could cause, how far that revenue is in the future, the risk associated with achieving that financial goal and the different profit scenarios associated with each level of risk.
SCO might be a bubble, but with the attention it draws, it also has a very solid chance of not being a bubble. The larger investors will be watching this stock VERY closely and would dump it way before you have any idea that SCO is going down. One aspect in their favor for you to consider is that of all of the posts here I don't see anyone giving this argument any credit at all. That's the most dangerous sign I've seen yet and I hate SCO as much as anyone here, but I'm not blind either.
SCO could win this in several ways and no, it doesn't have to be inbred juries. The GPL has never been tested in court, I haven't seen anything indicating that this is 100% reliable. Losing that would be huge and the impact on the open source movement would be tremendous. SCO also might actually have a 'silver bullet' of stolen or misappropriated Unix code. There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code. If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release (which would probably be all of a week in coming) and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code. That wouldn't generate anywhere near the revenue that they will if they can catch the Linux community cold and then force you to pay them or abandon your IT infrastructure until a patch comes out. That's much more enforcable as well.
In fact, SCO's 'public letters' could all be a smoke and mirrors game, and the code they've released so far to endless ridicule here on
The author of this original thread had an excellent point - sure it's easy to dismiss them as non-technical people who read 'serious' magazines. But you're missing the point, you're talking about people who have made a LOT OF MONEY investing in companies, it's what they do. If SCO was just smoke and mirrors don't you think some analysts would be crying that? Surely at least one arbitrage firm would be setting up a short position (and yes you can do short positions while mitigating your upside risk). But I don't see any of that - before you accuse the 'other side' of reading misleading press check your own.
Now, you may be right, SCO might be full of it, but after seeing all the posts on this article and not seeing any actually talk about places where SCO might actually have a good point, I'm actually worried now that they might have a much stronger position than I had ever thought. Before this, I didn't really follow SCO, but now I'm very concerned.
The science behind finance and pricing and valuation at the large IB's is just as valid as any amount of technical knowledge you have, just in a different area. And I imagine people have been all over SCO's future and the potential embedded profit scenarios in their legal action and that's reflected in their current price. SCO isn't in the same situation as the internet bubbles, people have seen these types of lawsuits before, they know how to value them, this is not new. This concerns me.
I still can't bring myself to buy stock in SCO, but I'm very concerned know that they might actually have something.
FYI, the Nephites were from a lost tribes of Isreal that came to America on a submarine a few thousand years ago.
The submariners were Jaredites, who supposedly came straight from the Tower of Babel. Nephi and friends just had an unremarkable ship. Also, in the traditional interpretation the Lamanite ancestors all came on Nephi's ship; it wasn't until people examined Native American DNA that the idea of unmentioned Siberian-descended Lamanite groups became popular.
The Utah Court system is SCO's ace in the hole.
Not yet, it isn't. Judge Wells certainly doesn't seem to have a pro-SCO prejudice, and at the rate the McBrides are going the case may never make it to a jury trial. Even if it gets that far and SCO's lawyers somehow manage to get a biased jury, Novell has as much of a "hometown Utah company" appearance as SCO does, and based on their statements and copyright filings Novell looks like they're going to bat for our side.
Regardless, I would be worried about shorting SCO or any penny stock from Utah, as Provo Stocks have certain irrational characteristics.
I'd be worried about shorting SCO because every stock (especially every thinly traded stock) has certain irrational characteristics. If there are suckers out there who will pay $20 a share for SCO, how do I know there aren't suckers who would pay $40 a share?
That may or may not be so. Analysts also sometimes lie, as the New York Attorney General recently demonstrated in a successful court case. I won't speculate on whether it's more of a case of ignorance, lying, or a cynical evaluation of the ignorance of the market on the part of certain investors, that has been driving up the price in this case.
SCO might be a bubble, but with the attention it draws, it also has a very solid chance of not being a bubble.
Let's apply Occam's Razor here: I move that they are getting lots of attention because (a) they are sqwarking a lot; (b) they are scaring some Fortune 500 companies, at least temporarily until the CxOs talk to their legal advisors; (c) there is a lot of money and a catastophic harm to the Linux market puportedly at stake here, if you believe SCO.
Attention does not imply correctness. Popularity does not imply correctness.
The GPL has never been tested in court, I haven't seen anything indicating that this is 100% reliable.
Well, admittedly there is a flaky argument prevalent on Slashdot and Groklaw. The arguments runs that if the GPL were "invalidated" it would revert to "no rights to copy", which would kill SCO in punitive damages. Not necessarily. Another possibility is that the court might try to find the "nearest charitable purpose" that is similar to the spirit of the GPL but doesn't break the law.
So that counter-argument doesn't really work. But the problem with your argument is more fundamental. In order to talk about this sensibly we have to speculate on what precisely the judge might try to strike down. No-one, to my knowledge, has put forward a good argument for why any law or constitutional amendment would invalidate any aspect of the GPL - least of all SCO.
Granted, the least popular aspect of the GPL is the copyleft idea. But it is a completely logical fallacy to argue that because it is unpopular with some, then it is somehow legally dubious. Yes, it is perhaps the most likely aspect for SCO to attack. But without a visible chink in the armour, why should we worry?
I think the onus is on you to suggest an actual argument for why the GPL might fail in court.
There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code. If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release (which would probably be all of a week in coming) and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code. That wouldn't generate anywhere near the revenue that they will if they can catch the Linux community cold and then force you to pay them or abandon your IT infrastructure until a patch comes out. That's much more enforcable as well.
Note that SCO (both predecessors in interest, old SCO and Caldera) has contributed to Linux massively, and even sold it, and continued to offer it for months after evidence of infringement was allegedly discovered. So what we have here is a company spending years giving out its own product for free and misleadingly giving the impression - in a very clear license, the GPL! - that the product being given out is unencumbered in all relevant respects. Even if SCO could persuade a judge that the infringements were not noticed due to gross incompetence on SCO's part, any reasonable judge would give all parties a reasonable grace period to wait for the patch to come out and apply it.
And the law (and IBM's contract with SCO, incidentally) obliges SCO to reveal what code is infringing before it can claim damages. Damages incurred by users prior to that time are innocent infringements, and although they may be technically liable, would any judge in the land award SCO money based on its own failure to mitigate the alleged damages? No, it would not. There is no successful precedent that I have heard of for such abusive rent-seeking towards innocent third-
Female Prison Rape in NY
Ok, I am assuming that you are trying to indicate whay institutional bankers are still investing in SCO, just as Bank of America, et al. were doing with Parmalat up until very recently. But this viewpoint overlooks a large number of issues that I don't see an institutional banker with ANY legal screening missing (you do legal screening of these claims, right?). OK, even without legal screening, some analysts have been saying some interesting things about SCO. IANAL, however, though I read court cases as a hobby.
The first is that the GPL being tested in court doesn't do a darn thing for SCO. Either they lose (and probably go out of business), or they win and face massive lawsuits by Linux kernel developers over copyright infringement. Yes, without the permission from the GPL, it is SCO who is infringing on copyrights not only by IBM and Red Hat, but also Linus Torvalds and THOUSANDS of other contributors.
Secondly, analyists HAVE been saying that these lawsuits undermine SCO's former core competency as a software manufacturer.
Laura DiDio aside, I think analyst reaction to SCOG has NOT been as positive as you make it out to be. And Laura DiDio has claimed that the lack of indemnification is what holds Linux up in the enterprise while failing to mention that no other enterprise OS offers such indemnification. Interestingly Linux as offered by HP now does which should by that measure give them a strong advantage in the marketplace.
Third, SCO did not fare well in the last round of hearings. I have generally used pretrial hearings as a general test of how the judge views issues at hand, and the judge has not reacted well to what IBM has argued are sets of delaying tactics and discovery requests without specific allegations of wrongdoing (i.e. fishing for evidence). SCO will have had 7 months to prepare their response to the discovery request in January, and it will be interesting to see what they do or don't put forth.
Finally, the fact that SCOG was an active contributor and distributor (even after the lawsuit was filed!), they cannot argue that they inadvertantly distributed their trade secrets under the GPL. No one believes that.
SCO IS A BUBBLE. And the SEC is now investigating three banks in conjunction with their handling of Parmalat (including Deutchebank and Bank of America). SCO may be next.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP