Royal Bank of Canada Cashes Out of SCO; SCO Begins Layoffs

Oblig. Simpsons Quote by Big+Toe · 2004-05-07 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Haha!

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 09:29 · Score: 2, Informative

You gotta love this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=on&z =m &q=l&c=

Time for Darl get a box and pack up the office.

Thank "The Doors.".. by pegr · 2004-05-07 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again

Quite appropriate, don't you think?

Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by daeley · 2004-05-07 08:44 · Score: 5, Funny

People are strange when you're Darl McBride
Linux looks ugly when you're alone
IBM seems wicked when you've just sued them
Wall Street is uneven when your stock is down

When you're Darl
Lawyers come out of the rain
When you're Darl
No one won't curse your name
When you're Darl
When you're Darl
When you're Darl

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Shakrai · 2004-05-07 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll catch hell and lose all my karma for this but perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to cheer this on. Darl is an evil bastard but I feel bad for the people who have the misfortune of working there (and who might not have anywhere else to go -- the economy sucks) that are about to get pink slips because of his ill-advised legal battle against IBM.

I doubt you'd be so quick to cheer if a member of your family worked for them -- or if you owned stock and have been watching Carl & Co. run it into ground.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by pr0c · 2004-05-07 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I were an employee there I would have been looking for a new job for months and months and months... Not because I hate SCO but because I would consider the job to be too unstable. If they couldn't have the foresight to do the same... screw em.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by DaHat · 2004-05-07 08:55 · Score: 2, Informative

and who might not have anywhere else to go -- the economy sucks

You make it sound so easy. Regardless of how much ones job may suck, finding another one is rarely easy these days. By your statement, I do not think you have much experience in the real world as what you said is far easier said then done.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Shakrai · 2004-05-07 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I were an employee there I would have been looking for a new job for months and months and months... Not because I hate SCO but because I would consider the job to be too unstable. If they couldn't have the foresight to do the same... screw em.

"Screw 'em"? Nice attitude. What if they have been looking and can't find another job? And my comment gets modded down? Geesh!

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by el-spectre · 2004-05-07 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Most of us aren't cheering because someone is losing their job, but because the company that is being such a shit is in trouble.

Kind of like how you might feek bad for telemarketers (the employees), but were happy when the do - not - call list went into effect.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 09:13 · Score: 5, Funny

You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Torvalds is a thief and a liar

Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire

The time to litigate is through
No time to wallow in the mire
Try now we can only lose
And our company become a funeral pyre

Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire, yeah

The time to litigate is through
No time to wallow in the mire
Try now we can only lose
And our company become a funeral pyre

Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire, yeah

You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Girl, our lawyers couldn't get much higher

Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Da+Fokka · 2004-05-07 09:17 · Score: 2, Informative

This is why the germans invented the term 'schadenfreude'.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by digitalmuse · 2004-05-07 09:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

while I can understand your argument, and I agree that this does not bode well for the company's employees, I still think that in the long-term this is the 'best' course for this whole sorrid affair to follow.
yes, it has nasty repercussions for the folks in the SCO cube-farm, but what kind of legal seal-bashing would be encouraged by letting SCO get away with this? If they got away with it this time, some other C?O with an ichy palm would think that these kinds of anti-FOSS/GPL antics were a neat way to mint money. Can you imagine the digital landscape in 2-5 years if we let Darl cart away the cash because big-bully-bill set him up to take cheap shots at the penguins?
Perhaps BayStar will be a little bit more thorough in vetting the business plans of the companies they invest in? Maybe people will stop trying to rewrite/reinterpret their old contracts to get a better footing for creativity killing lawsuits? Maybe companies will return to the good old days of creating and selling products that consumers want and are willing to pay for, not just threatening people with lawsuits from ToonTown, UT.

Yes, our fellow techies are losing their jobs, but did you ever cry over Vader's poor unknowning Stormtrooper henchmen as they ate blaster-fire like the faceless minions they are? C'mon, if you're an employee of a company pulling antics like SCO, then you should either get your CV in order and start seriously looking for employment elsewhere or just lie down like a dog and get the whuppin' that's likely to come down the tracks.

--
"If I wanted your input on my pet project, I'd stick my hand up your ass and use you like a sock-puppet." - Muse
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by slam+smith · 2004-05-07 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a few friends who use to work for Caldera. They were real Linux people. A few monthes before the law suits started, they all started bailing out. I suspect that the people left there in the Utah offices are mostly just there to feed the lawsuits. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Of course the don't seem to be the ones getting laid off.

SCO is doomed with or without Darl. The sooner this ends the better. Think of all the resources this is wasting in companies like, IBM, Novell, DaimlerChrysler, Autozone, SGI, Redhat, etc. That could be much more profitably put towards new products, R&D, etc. How many new jobs might be created, instead of wasted on these legal struggles?

And whil

--
My Weblog
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Uber+Banker · 2004-05-07 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

the economy sucks The economy most certainly does not suck. These are not the dot com days, but that was fantasy land anyway and best not returned to (it will only cause another crash). Non-farm payrolls today were excellent, the unemployment remains at 5.7% (low), interest rates are low and rises over the next two years will be gradual and low in historical terms. The household balance sheet is robust, consumer spending reasonable and corporate investment good. Successful global trade has the benefit of keeping prices of goods and services down allowing income to be spent on even more. The economy most certainly does not suck. Besides, a company losing 10% of its ~270 employees is less than the local fast food store going out of business... at least the employees of the local fast food joint had more belief in what they were doing - any SCO employee with ethics would have got out far sooner.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 10:28 · Score: 3, Informative

sandbender n. [IBM] A person involved with silicon lithography and the physical design of chips. Compare ironmonger, polygon pusher.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by nlindstrom · 2004-05-07 10:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're a moron. It's your job, while employed at a company, to monitor what said company is doing. If they're busy fucking over the world, then that should serve as the writing on the wall.
I can't stand people who are laid off and then whine "but I didn't see it coming!" Yeah, you had your eyes shut. Keep 'em open next time, eh?
SCO employees have made their beds; now it is time for them to lie in them.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by rossifer · 2004-05-07 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I quit a job that was sucking the life out of me in September 2002. The job market in 2002 appeared much worse than the job market today. It took me until January 2003 to find a better job, and the one I found turned out to be 1500 miles away from my friends and family.

Sure it was scary to do when the economy sucked and jobs were few and far between. Sure I was worried about how I was going to pay bills (I took a class in bartending just in case). Sure I was freaked out about moving halfway across the country for a new and mostly unknown job. But I did all of those things and so can others.

Quite simply, there was absolutely no way in hell that I was going to stay in that job. Life is simply too short to spend 8 or more hours a day being miserable. If I worked for SCO before their lawsuit, I'd have been one of the first out the door, with or without a replacement job in hand. There's simply no salary large enough to compensate for your self-respect.

Regards,
Ross
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 10:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

When someone takes a job as a telemarketeer they are deliberately setting out to do something they should know pisses people off. So to hell with telemarketeers.

Most people, when they take a job as a telemarketer (or any other job the performance of which is likely to annoy or offend us) are doing so to feed themselves and their family. Not everyone is lucky enough to have an education, a high level of technical expertise, or the time or money to obtain one. Not everyone needs a fulfilling career. Some people just need a job.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by el-spectre · 2004-05-07 10:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

You think folks take jobs as telemarketers because they want to be annoying? Hell no, they need a job.

I know it's fun to make extreme statements, but a little compassion ( or at least empathy) might be in order here.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by aardvarkjoe · 2004-05-07 11:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

You think folks take jobs as telemarketers because they want to be annoying?

The original poster didn't say they want to be annoying, he said that they are deliberately pissing people off. And for that, they deserve all of the verbal abuse that they get. If they're going to assist in lowering people's quality of life, they shouldn't expect any better in return.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by fingerfucker · 2004-05-07 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Besides, a company losing 10% of its ~270 employees is less than the local fast food store going out of business...
Please state your sources every time you claim a fact!!!!

According to the RBoC stock coversion, SCO has a business presence in 82 countries with a network of 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. While the 11,000 resellers are solution providers, and their developers when dubbed developer network is listed as 8,000 in number, I haven't seen any actual "employees" numbers anywhere.
You use nothing more but a vague "good" to describe a well-performing economy. That's just pathetic.
Consumer debt load is at record high, including mortgage debt. According to the same source (USATODAY), "household debt levels rose nearly 11% in 2003" alone!!! This does not tell good things about household balance sheets. In fact, consumer debt levels reveal what the balance sheets wouldn't. In this case, they tell you how sh*t-fscked the Americans got, living today on money they will earn tomorrow for years now and it can't get better.
And when was the last time you checked the 2003 record-high $380 billion dollar deficit.
I am not opposing the fact that the economy doesn't suck. But you have not shown it and made close to zero effot (only concrete unemployment numbers)!! You have to know your facts and know what makes a good economy first.
I will conclude my point by reiterating the fundamentals. I said it once, I'll say it fscking again: State your sources!!!
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-05-07 22:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Touch me Baystar
Can't you see that I am not afraid?
What was that promise that you made?
Why won't you tell me what MS said?
What was that promise that you made?

Now I'm gonna love you, 'till IBM stops the suit
I'm gonna love you 'till the suits descend from the news
from Big Blue

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

So the moral of this story.... by LordPhantom · 2004-05-07 08:32 · Score: 5, Funny

....is Canadian shareholders are wiser than the US ones?

Re:So the moral of this story.... by slam+smith · 2004-05-07 09:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Well if you look at it in another way.

Canadian investment in SCO - 30 million
American investment in SCO - 20 million

Canadian Population ~ 30 million
American Population ~ 300 million

So on a per capita basis Canadians are 15 times more responsible for the SCO mess

:-)

--
My Weblog

Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:33 · Score: 5, Informative

"Begins layoffs"? Where have you been, SCO has been laying off staff for months now.

In Santa Cruz, for example, they sliced their tech staff by like 80% or something.

Re:Where have you been? by SoSueMe · 2004-05-07 08:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Read the bottom of the "News" item.
"Source: The SCO Group"

That's why it began with: "The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions and the owner of the UNIX operating system,....

I almost choked when I read the first line.
Re:Where have you been? by AKnightCowboy · 2004-05-07 09:07 · Score: 5, Funny

In Santa Cruz, for example, they sliced their tech staff by like 80% or something.
How will this affect the release schedule for the next minor versions of the Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? I've been anticipating Linux 2.6 settling down a bit before I switch and this news of SCO reducing it's tech staff by such a huge amount causes me to question investing so much of my time and energy into upgrading.
If SCO ceases to exist, will Linux still be available!? Will they open source the code so that a group of volunteers can saddle up and take the reins from this dedicated staff of SCO developers who have put so much time and effort into making Linux the great operating system that it is? Inquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions damnit.
Re:Where have you been? by SoSueMe · 2004-05-07 09:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Screw it. I can't mod this thread anymore so, I might as well post the latest issue of "Darl Spins Bad News"

"The SCO Group Receives From Royal Bank of Canada Notice of Conversion and Transfer of Shares of Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock
Friday May 7, 2:00 pm ET

LINDON, Utah, May 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions and the owner of the UNIX operating system, received on May 5, 2004 notice that Royal Bank of Canada has elected to convert 10,000 shares of SCO's Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock it currently holds into a total of 740,740 shares of SCO's common stock. The conversion will occur as permitted under SCO's Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights relating to the Series A-1 stock. The Series A-1 stock was purchased at a price of $1,000 per share, and will be converted to common stock based on a conversion price of $13.50 per share.

Additionally, Royal Bank of Canada informed SCO that it has sold 20,000 shares of Series A-1 stock to BayStar Capital II, L.P., which currently also holds shares of Series A-1 stock. After completion of the conversion, Royal Bank of Canada will have no equity interest in SCO other than the shares of common stock it receives from the conversion, and BayStar Capital II, L.P. will be the sole remaining holder of outstanding shares of Series A-1 stock.

About SCO

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com.

SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Source: The SCO Group"

Emphasis mine.

Now, if this doesn't have all the characteristics of an open forum press flood, I don't know what does. Thank you, YaHoo Finance! You bought it!
Re:Where have you been? by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2004-05-07 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't know how you come up with 10 pissed off lawyers.

Last year, in June, but I think even up until October, SCO claimed to have 330 employees.

When the recent layoffs were announced, they said they were laying off "way less than ten percent" of their 275 employees.

275? I thought they had 330?

Since SCO currently has 275 employees, the "way under ten percent" must mean they are laying off 27 people, which would be 9.81%.

This leaves them with 248. This means they have lost 82 people (330 - 248) or 24.84% ("way under 25%" using SCO speak) of their workforce in less than a year. Perhaps even in just six months.

Now since SCO didn't have layoffs until now, how do you suppose they dropped from 330 to 275 employees in the meantime? (I won't say anything about rats and sinking ships.)

Now why do I just bindly assume in SCO speak that "way under 10 percent" actually means 9.81%? Because if it were under nine percent, they would have said "way under nine percent!". So instead of laying off 27, they could have laid off 26 (9.45%) or laid off 5 (9.09%), in which case my above quackulations would need adjustment.

--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Re:Where have you been? by XorNand · 2004-05-07 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

+5 Funny on Slashdot. If this were a post on a CIO new site, it would probably be +5 Insightful. I like seeing SCO get kicked in the nuts as much as the next geek. However, understand that to the vast majority of people who only mentally process buzzwords "SCO", "Linux" and "legal problems" are mentally interlinked. This is not a good thing for GNU/Linux any way you slice it.

Geeks should be praying for this SCO thing to go away quietly, not for them to be flogged in the town square.

--
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"

who? by name773 · 2004-05-07 08:33 · Score: 3, Funny

man those linux people must be real meanies... harming an innocent nice company like sco. ugh.

10%? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:33 · Score: 4, Funny

As Chairman Mao says, "the journey of a thousand li begins with one step."

--------
Free mobile porn

Re:10%? by artwells · 2004-05-07 08:53 · Score: 5, Funny

How do you say "off a short pier" in Chinese?

Finally! by tweakt · 2004-05-07 08:33 · Score: 2, Funny

It's about damn time... I guess they couldn't keep the air in the stock price any longer.

10 Percent of their workforce! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Man, that's a lot of attorneys out of work!

Re:10 Percent of their workforce! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 09:02 · Score: 3, Funny

No, no - you've got it wrong. No attoneys were fired.

I think their workforce USED to be 90% attorneys.

With 100% attorneys, they're a prime example of the new breed of IT company. The IT industry used to be heavy on the technical side, but the new trend is to be heavy on the (protection of) information side.

(the above is meant to be funny)

Smilin' like the Enzyte Guy by wowbagger · 2004-05-07 08:34 · Score: 4, Funny

This news has me smilin' like the Enzyte Guy!

--
www.eFax.com are spammers

Bre-X by Jason1729 · 2004-05-07 08:34 · Score: 4, Funny

The subject says it all (at least to any Candians reading this).

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Bre-X by IgnoramusMaximus · 2004-05-07 08:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

You got it. Being a Canadian myself I would like to bask in the glory of us as a whole being smarter, better, more educated, more richeous etc., but...
Although it starts amongst joyous meadows and cheerful flowers, truly great evil this path leads to. Evil bearing names like Abu Gharib and My Lai.
So just note that it was Royal Bank who against all common sense invested in SCO in the first place. They are just now growing cold feet and preparing to run for the door.
Re:Bre-X by Eggplant62 · 2004-05-07 08:57 · Score: 3, Funny

You got it. Being a Canadian myself I would like to bask in the glory of us as a whole being smarter, better, more educated, more richeous etc., but...

unfortunately, we can't spell for shit.
Re:Bre-X by overloadhz · 2004-05-07 09:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Spelling issue aside, your point is well taken. However there is more than a hint of moral ascendancy in your comments. Thanks, we all needed your "cautionary message" to reinvigorate our sense of white American guilt...
Re:Bre-X by MikeCapone · 2004-05-07 09:49 · Score: 4, Funny

unfortunately, we can't spell for shit.

At least we can do that in more than one language!

--
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Re:Bre-X by jmt9581 · 2004-05-07 11:04 · Score: 2, Funny

You can shit in more than one language?
..... No!
:)

--
My blog
Re:Bre-X by ergo98 · 2004-05-07 11:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

So just note that it was Royal Bank who against all common sense invested in SCO in the first place

It's called a hedge, and it's absolutely rudimentary investing. You see in the one hand RBC has a lot of stock in organizations that would be seriously financially penalized if RBC won their case, so in the other hand they wanted to balance that by holding some of the potential threat -- if SCO somehow won, RBC would have a winner to slightly offset the losers.

RBC is cashing out because it's become obvious that SCO is sitting on nothing but promises so there is little risk to the other equity.
Re:Bre-X by Tsian · 2004-05-07 11:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Thank you, but thats Non!
Re:Bre-X by IgnoramusMaximus · 2004-05-08 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

you spout off about how wonderful you are
No, actually I learned a lesson that ./ readers do not read past the first line of any post. The message actually was about how we Canadians are not wonderful and if we think we are better, we will end up doing stuff which our American cousins are not so proud of. And immediately I got hammered to the ground for a spelling mistake. Quite a sad lesson. And totally unexpected one. It was an indefensible position indeed, except it was my spelling Nazi attackers who were in it.

Intellectual Property Claims? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

He said BayStar had reached "the conclusion that SCO should focus its resources on its most valuable asset: its intellectual property claims."

I'm sorry, which intellectual property claims were those?

Does Baystar believe their claims of their source code in Linux are meritable?

Re:Intellectual Property Claims? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Methinks it would be smart not to say "SCO's IP claims are meritless" while you still own so many shares of SCO stock. They can tell the truth AFTER they get their money back.

Then again, it would be SMARTER never to have had the stocks in the first place...

How nice. by corporate_ai · 2004-05-07 08:35 · Score: 2

It couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.

--
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I again refer you to my post dt. July 02 by unixwin · 2004-05-07 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The link Slasdot.org

or just the quote below...

Differently seen companies chasing their tails in copyright infringments, trade protocol violations and intellectual property rights are generally the ones which are going to fall pretty soon.

Short on cash and not being able to earn/fund the millions they were used to in the dotgone era they are metamorphosing into scavengers and opportunists ....
SCO is a shining example The crummy economy is bringing out the best in a lot of Companys, their legal team thinks, "we are getting irrelevant (as a team) , lets think up something to make some money and make sure we dont' get laid off," "hmmm... patent # 5551212 seems to be worth looking into" and there starts their Road to Hell [lyricsdepot.com]

Easy money (or so they think) ,lot of publicity (for sure) and a lot of hits on their website , so there's a new concept for you

the legal team is now the marketing team

--
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.

Re:I again refer you to my post dt. July 02 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

I dunno, being litigious bastards makes a disturbing amount of sense from a purely business perspective.

Litiguous bastards:

1. Don't need customers, just people to sue.
2. Don't need to keep good customer relations, just to maintain enough paperwork to sue (former) customers.
3. Don't need to support a product.
4. Don't need to develop a product.
5. Don't need extensive infrastructure. Or an office for that matter, just a desk in a law firm. (Or, take the Simpson's Approach: "Hey, you, get out of my office!" - Lionel Hutts to Homer Simpson, lying in a tipped-over phone booth)
6. Don't need a lot of capital, just enough to keep the lawyers going until the 'big payoff' comes in the form of a win/settlement.

Basically, it flies in the face of almost every rule in the business book. You get to make money without doing anything productive towards the economy (no job creation, no product in use, no VALUE). And, of course, this is why litigious bastards MUST fail. We can't get people believing that the world can run off of bullshit and hot air. If you make money, you should make money by DOING something, at least in the bigger picture.

Even other companies that make money from 'IP' (say, music or software) puts out something for people to use/consume/enjoy/work on. Litiguous bastards don't contribute to the economic equation, they try to rob it, try to leech it dry.

SCO must be ground into the dust, same as RAMBUS.

Not a Good Stock to Own by jcrash · 2004-05-07 08:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Ouch - currently, 50% of the total float of SCOX (the SCO Stock) is shorted.

So, for every person betting it is going to go up, there is someone betting it will go down.

--
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by Jonboy+X · 2004-05-07 08:52 · Score: 4, Informative

The scary thing about that statistic is the idea of a short squeeze. Basically, that means that if the price rises a bit, maybe some people are forced to buy back the stock, 'cuz they don't have enough money in their margin account to cover the stock's value anymore. This buy bumps the price some more, and now the next guy has to cover. It's hardly ever an issue, but 50% short interest is pretty much unheard of.

Of course, for this to happen, the stock price would actually have to go *up* first...

--

"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by jjo · 2004-05-07 08:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Not only that, but the short ratio is almost 14 days. That means that if everyone else stopped buying, and all the shorts started buying to cover their positions, it would take two weeks of normal trading volume to cover them all. We still may see someone try a short squeeze.

Aside from that, it seems that the only reason that people are still holding SCOX is to get some more money out of whoever has been manipulating the stock price for the past year. That's the only explanation I can see for SCOX not being the penny stock it was (and will be again).
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by schon · 2004-05-07 09:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

for every person betting it is going to go up, there is someone betting it will go down.

And as ~46% of the stock is held by insiders, it tells me that a whopping 92% of shareholders who aren't insiders think it's gonna go down.

Thems not good numbers. :o)
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

You miss understand numbers. I'm not expert, but there are 14.42M shares and 3.95M shorted according to yahoo. That already doesn't match. Second, you can't short a stock without someone else willing to go long. Someone has to have the share to loan them to you. Actually, shorts aren't considered shareholders, but the longs are.
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by franzzup · 2004-05-07 15:09 · Score: 2, Informative

You are seriously confused. :-)
I am short SCOX and have held a part of my short position for over a year. Indeed, an advantage of taking a short position vs. buying put options is that you can generally hold your short position if the stock takes longer to tank than you anticipated, while options have a fixed expiration date.
Of course, as has been mentioned, there are no options on SCOX anyway.

What do you bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny

... that none of those layed off are lawyers?

Re:good by DaHat · 2004-05-07 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Say what you want about the policies or politics of SCO, it is always unfortunate when large numbers of people are laid off due to the problems of the company (ie those who made the bad decisions get to keep their cushy jobs).

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Lay-offs abroad? by BuddieFox · 2004-05-07 08:36 · Score: 3, Funny

"The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting, SCO is laying off 10 percent of its worldwide workforce."

I guess they are laying of lawyers in Germany then? :)

Layoffs are not nice by cwernli · 2004-05-07 08:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Even if they weren't everybody's darling, they at least didn't manufacture any weapons.

Re:Layoffs are not nice by cwernli · 2004-05-07 09:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually SCO systems were used in some tanks. There were stories going around about patches etc being downloaded in the field in the early 90's.
That's probably this one. Way back in REM-time, with BBS's still going strong.

The control system for the cabin of the Boeing 777 also used to run on UnixWare.
Not anymore; but I never really understood what a browser has to do with an operating system.
Re:Layoffs are not nice by phoneyman · 2004-05-07 09:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

First off, what's wrong with manufacturing weapons? The reality of the world today is that weapons are still necessary. In fact it's highly unlikely that weapons will ever be completely unnecessary.

Second, since when does the act of not manufacturing weapons become an excuse for immoral behaviour? I'm pretty sure if I came home and said "Hey Hon, I banged some hookers on my way home but at least I didn't manufacture any weapons!" I'd still end up homeless.

What an assinine comment, insightful my ass.

Pierre

The begining of the end... by WordODD · 2004-05-07 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uh oh looks like Microsoft is going to need to find a new puppet company to attack Linux through now that SCO's end may be in sight.

--
Please do not let scientific accuracy interfere with the intended humourous/interesting/insightful value of this comment

Re:The begining of the end... by leoxx · 2004-05-07 08:47 · Score: 2, Informative

They already have.

It's not over yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Remember, they still have a decent chunk of money in the bank. Until that's gone, this isn't over.

stock price by bhny · 2004-05-07 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

The strange thing about SCOX stock is the volume is very tiny.
Today it was 64,035. That's about the equivalent of 2 day-traders flipping the stock back and forth.

What does that mean? Nobody is interested in buying or selling this thing.

Re:stock price by peeping_Thomist · 2004-05-07 09:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nobody is interested in buying or selling this thing.

Oh, I'll bet lots of people are interested in selling it, but they can't get their price for it...

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton

Oblig. Star Wars reference by 3Cats · 2004-05-07 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Minion to Darl:

".. We've analysed their attack sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?"

3C

Re:Oblig. Star Wars reference by space_biker · 2004-05-07 09:07 · Score: 4, Funny

What!!!! In our moment of Triumph!!!!

I know some of these people ... by JMZorko · 2004-05-07 08:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I live in Santa Cruz, and know some of these people who were laid off recently. I don't like what SCO is doing, either ... and I have fond hopes that they fail miserably with regards to their Linux IP litigations. Still, some good friends of mine are now without work, without prescription benefits, and in this jobless recovery, without much hope. I feel very badly for them.

Regards,

John, human

--
Falling You - beautiful

Re:I know some of these people ... by DAldredge · 2004-05-07 08:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Tough Shit. They where working for the devil and they knew it.
Re:I know some of these people ... by silas_moeckel · 2004-05-07 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even worse who realy wants to hire anybody with the taint of SCO on there resume? I'm not saying they didn't have some good people but lets face it managers do look at where your comming from and if your laid off from SCO that tell me that you were to dumb to leave let me correct that run while sending your resume to every head hunter you have ever known, away from that ship. Moral is start thinking about leaving when your company goes bad not when they lay you off as they tank.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:I know some of these people ... by bshroyer · 2004-05-07 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Jobless recovery my ass

April employment stats released this morning reveal 625K new nonfarm jobs the last two months.

And with unemployment currently at 5.6%, that's lower than it's been the last 30 years, excluding the dot-com bubble 1996-2001. (You'd be hard-pressed to find an economist who would indicate that unemployment of 4.2%, as we had in 1999, is good for the economy, much less sustainable.

If your friend can't find a job, perhaps he needs to switch location, career, or both. It's quite possible there aren't a lot of open positions for Unix gurus in Southern California these days.

--
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Re:I know some of these people ... by molarmass192 · 2004-05-07 09:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ironically, your friends in Santa Cruz had absolutely nothing to do with Darl and his foaming-at-the-mouth Linux vendetta yet now they're the ones paying the price. The silver lining is that SCO as a company is finished, so leaving the company was inevitable. Still, I know lots of people out of work and it's still very hard out there, regardless of all the "Jobs Growth" headlines in the papers.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Re:I know some of these people ... by DevilM · 2004-05-07 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

You missed the news... the jobless recovery is over. The latest jobs report showed aggressive growth.
Re:I know some of these people ... by ChangeOnInstall · 2004-05-07 09:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I live in Santa Cruz, and know some of these people who were laid off recently. I don't like what SCO is doing, either ... and I have fond hopes that they fail miserably with regards to their Linux IP litigations. Still, some good friends of mine are now without work, without prescription benefits, and in this jobless recovery, without much hope. I feel very badly for them.

Regards,

John, human

It can be a terrible thing for someone to lose their job, especially given that they probably were in ideal positions before Darl came along. But honestly, these folks shouldn't be at all surprised that they are being laid off. The writing has been on the wall for about nine months now, and for the last six or so it should have been blatantly obvious that anyone who doesn't add value to the litigation should not even count on a short term future with SCO.

I feel bad for these folks because the management decided to wreck their company, but that happened last year.

--
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Re:I know some of these people ... by FirstOne · 2004-05-07 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Jobless recovery my ass...April employment stats released this morning reveal 625K new nonfarm jobs the last two months."
All the claimed job growth is smoke and mirrors.. the globalists are manipulating the survey results.
It fairly easy to make up fake claims of hiring, especially since they are the one's filling out the DOL questionnaires!!
Now for a dose of the truth !
Collected SS receipts.. (You know that little old flat tax on Salaries and wages, no deductibles or exemptions allowed)
Has not been keeping up with inflation.. (And that's assuming zero job growth in the intervening year !!!)
That truth link also covers half of April's supposed growth,
since the DOL survey uses 2nd week of each month as the benchmark.
(a double whammy..)
In summary.. you've been conned!!
Just more job losses and cut backs, buried under a pile of bogus statistics !
Re:I know some of these people ... by twigles · 2004-05-07 09:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I went through a brutal layoff in 2001 and it sucks. There are emails flying all over with personal contact info and people spend all day looking at the Monster boards and finding nothing. Then if McBride is as sleazy as our CEO was he'll call a company meeting a week or two before the whole company implodes and tell everyone that the rumors are all wrong and everything is fine, thus giving the knife a little twist.

Anyone with an MBA should be dealt with suspiciously - they don't think like us. Let them prove themselves but don't go rushing in believing them right away, and no matter what they tell you they are *not* your friend.

I feel for these people also because Santa Cruz doesn't look like it is an enviable place to live right now if you're looking for a tech job. Now with all these Unix geeks hitting the street at once I'll know to avoid it for a couple years more.

SCO and IP property rights (DMCA?) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

What people need to realize is that while the Royal Bank of Canada is the indirect cause of the layoffs, the direct cause is still SCO due to their misuse of the Anser Albifrons clause of the DMCA which allows for this behaviour. The previous versions of Linux (2.4 and 2.2), while allowing for activities that are partial to the clause are not stable enough for the Royal Bank to continue to fund the stock trades of the SCO while they are Cashing out as per the title of this slashdot article.

Heh.. Play with fire.. Get burned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:40 · Score: 3, Informative

"The Series A-1 stock was purchased at a price of $1,000 per share, and will be converted to common stock based on a conversion price of $13.50 per share." Now.. I'm a stock market clod.. SCOX is currently trading at 6.. It's already lost 58ish percent. At least BayStar knows that the loss is covered.

SCO Imitates Art by yorgasor · 2004-05-07 08:40 · Score: 5, Funny

I came across this old Calvin and Hobbes strip and wondered if this is how SCO's planning meeting went

--
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out

Re:SCO Imitates Art by daeley · 2004-05-07 08:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Even their stupid business plans have prior art.

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

I can't help feeling... by Phidoux · 2004-05-07 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

... that MS is going to end up buying SCO. Then MS will probably GPL Unix, drop all the IP suits and end up trying to look like the good guys.

--
Free Firefox news reader.

Bert Young by Jonboy+X · 2004-05-07 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Just so ya know, Bert Young has a experience in helping companies that are basically dead in the water keep up the illusion of growth right up to the moment of reckoning. The GL has a story on it here.

--

"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al

Re:Bert Young by snakecoder · 2004-05-07 08:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

I did a little googling on Bert Young and two words I don't see in any of his ventures are "profitable business". Hiring that guy seems to be synonymous with writing a suicide note.

I will miss the entertainment though, sniff sniff.

--
-Nuke the moon
Re:Bert Young by Zocalo · 2004-05-07 09:06 · Score: 4, Informative

That old Groklaw stuff is nothing, trust me. Check out Mr. Young's track record before marchFirst for even more revelations in this post at the Yahoo Finance board. Connections to MLM schemes, the mob, Adnan Kashoggi of Iran-Contra fame... Oh Boy!

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Bert Young by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 09:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, yeah! With credentials like those, how could SCO refuse to hire him?

To get more customers by Salo2112 · 2004-05-07 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

1. Stop suing them.
2. Then start selling an actual product.
3. Profit.

I can't wait to see how Laura Didio spins this one as a plus for SCO.

Stupid RBC by P.+Norbert+Ebersol · 2004-05-07 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

As a Canadian, AND someone with actual money in RBC investments, I'm totally disgusted. It's as bad in my eyes as having investments in Enron or any other such corrupt company propped up by shady deals and questionable legalities.

Of course, theres no point in whining about it now, as they've made their money and are getting out of it probably with a bit of profit at the expense of people even stupider.

Still, it makes me question the bank I've used exclusively over the past 20 years. I'm forced to take a closer look at what they're doing with my money.

Investment Strategy by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2004-05-07 08:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I prefer to own stock in companies that:

Have a product
that is involved in sales
to customers
generating revenue

SCO seems to have none of these things.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

Good, but sad by Rhesus+Piece · 2004-05-07 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

As glad that I am that a company with questionable business practices is getting what is coming to them, it also marks a pile of Linuxey IT workers who are out of a job. I don't care how evil we may think SCO is, there are folks in there just trying to do a good job and support their families. So, before we say, "Hurray! The Enemy is losing!" we should keep in mind that some of our own are amongst their ranks. Err.. were. Also, imagine applying for a job at a linuxey firm.. "Says here you worked for SCO.. they tried to ruin linux, right" "Oh.. it says SCO? That must be a typo." "There is a whole paragraph, in detail.." "It's ALL A TYPO!"

Reminds me of Apocalypse now... by freeze128 · 2004-05-07 08:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Utah. Shit. I'm still in Utah.

10% is nothing... by taped2thedesk · 2004-05-07 08:44 · Score: 4, Informative

...compared to the past year:

From SCO.com:
Q. How many people does The SCO Group employ? A. As of April 30, 2003, 339 employees.

From the article:
Stowell said the cuts totaled less than 10 percent of the company's total worldwide work force of 275. There were cuts, however, earlier in the quarter as well. In March the company reported 305 employees, including 73 in Santa Cruz.

339 - 275 = 64 positions gone from April 2003 to May 2004, not including these layoffs. Jeez.

Re:Ding Dong... by grub · 2004-05-07 08:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Did Netcraft confirm it? Poor SCO, truly an American icon.

--
Trolling is a art,

Martyrdom by AndyCap · 2004-05-07 08:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I do fear that the next spin on this will be martyrdom, Poor little SCO couldn't get justice before it was forced to its knees by the brutal linux movement sponsored by the behemoth IBM, or something to that effect.
--

Re:Martyrdom by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 09:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

You must have been reading the writings of Enderle (the not-so-savvy tech analyst).

He's been saying pretty much that for a while now. Called Linux users terrorists because he got hatemail for being a moron (well, he had more "justification" than that, but what I just said is pretty much what it boiled down to in the end...) I think they're his favorite scapegoats because they often point out how dumb he is, and that threatens his livelihood of writing BS articles...

In case you're wondering, why yes, I did spend quite a while researching him to see what his connections to SCO were after he started writing some of this nonsense. My conclusion was that he's not being paid by anyone, he's just a contrarian type who liked generating some controversy, because people calling him stupid reinforces for him the idea that he's smarter than them all, having "seen through" whatever "popular misconception" he's writing about today.

The best strategy for refuting him is to stick to points of provable, technical error (e.g. those points which do not depend on oppinion at all, however well-founded that oppinion might be) and politely call him on them. Preferably every single time he makes those mistakes (and trust me, there are plenty...). In doing so, CC whoever he's writing for (since he does guest columns and such, mostly), and chide him for not doing better fact-checking.

In other words, avoid any sort of ad hominem, and stick to the facts. Enough of that might get publications to reconsider his role as an "analyst" ... at least those publications who wish to be accurate (Forbes, etc. need not apply).

Time to head for the liquor store... by Eggplant62 · 2004-05-07 08:49 · Score: 2

The party starts now. Anyone who knows where I live, is welcome over here for a drink.

Well... by QuasiCoLtd · 2004-05-07 08:52 · Score: 5, Informative

According to Zdnet those being laid off are mostly in the engineering, marketing, and sales depatments. This is very telling for a so-called "tech" company to lay-off those responsible for creating and selling your core product. Of course we all know that SCO is a litigation company and has no need for engineers to improve a product, no marketers to hype the non-existant product, and no salesmen to.... well you get the idea.

Re:Stupid RBC by Dav3K · 2004-05-07 08:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I also deal heavily with RBC and almost did switch banks. I stayed with them only because they gave me the best service. However I did shuffle my mutual funds to non-sco funds and was clear about my reasons for doing so. At this point I am just relieved that RBC is no longer involved in this mess .

This really shows you something about SCO... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 08:55 · Score: 2, Funny

In Santa Cruz, for example, they sliced their tech staff by like 80% or something.

And they said that these layoffs were "to help us focus on our core business" ...

Re:good by cbovasso · 2004-05-07 08:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I completely agree. It is great to hear that SCO is losing their court battles but it is tough to hear people getting laid off. Now all those people have SCO as their last place of employment, that has gotta hurt.

--
I ask for a car and I get a computer. How's about that for being born under a bad .sig?

Gotta Love Layoff Logic by PetoskeyGuy · 2004-05-07 08:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Managerial Aptitude Test

Q. Your the captain of a ship commanding 100 sailors. Your carrying valuable cargo you need to sell for the owner of the ship. It appears there is a hole in your ship and water is coming in fast. What's do you do?

A. Find out what's wrong and fix it
B. Tell the sailors to start bailing water and sing something happy while they do it
C. Start looking around for at the other ships pilot since this once hasn't got long
D. Move the Cargo to your personal dingy and set sail
E. Tell everyone "This is not happening, everything is normal, the ship cannot be sinking, we take precautions, you know" and remain calm. (Erik the Viking)
F. Start throwing sailors into the sea until to lighten the load?

A bad thing? by tlambert · 2004-05-07 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just to add another point of view... this may be a bad thing.

[usual disclaimers here; I'm a layperson who has to deal with issues related to things like this occasionally]

The difference between a real company and an intellectual property holding company is that a real company has some skin in the game when it comes to treating patents as trading cards. An IP holding company doesn't.

As a simple example, consider two companies, "A" and "B", with a patent portfolio of 100 patents each, and real products that they are trying to sell.

When company A says to company B "you're infringing patent A17", B can use its portfolio defensively, and come back with "yes, but you're infringing patent B34; let's trade licenses".

If company A is an IP holding company, there's nothing company B can do but pay whatever extortionate price: Company A has no product, and is therefore not infringing any of B's IP. B is pretty much hanging in the wind.

The only place this isn't true is where B has some IP that A acknowledges is the basis of derivative IP held by A, _and_ A values the ability to continue sublicensing it without B raising sublicense fees for the original work in response to the extortion suit.

IF SCO is, effectively shedding their vulnerable assets, and IF they really have IP assets, this could be an entrenchment where it could end up being very hard to dig them out for a very long time.

The only real recourse to this sort of business model is for company B to attack companies that are infringing B's portfolio, and which are owned by the same people who own company A - effectively countering extortion with blackmail.

Yeah, I'm one of those people who think we need intellectual property law reform.

-- Terry

Re:A bad thing? by PsiPsiStar · 2004-05-07 09:40 · Score: 3, Funny

You're also one of those people who wrote the assembly instructions for my bunk bed, and my 1040 form.

If the amount on line C is non-zero and greater than the amount on line B subtract the amount on line A from line D and write on line E.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Re:A bad thing? by crusher-1 · 2004-05-07 09:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

"If company A is an IP holding company, there's nothing company B can do but pay whatever extortionate price: Company A has no product, and is therefore not infringing any of B's IP. B is pretty much hanging in the wind."

And this might explain why BayStar wants Darl out and for it to essentially (if not actually) drop it's Unix products and "concentrate" on the supposed IP holdings and litigation.

One of the cheif gripes of the Linux community (other than the initial claims that SCO owns Linux) is that both SCO Linux and Unix products used Open Source software, Apache for instance (as well as a host of other things). So if SCO has no product then your contention may be on spot, as far as not being in a position to fend off counter claims regarding what's in SCO Linux/Unix. If you don't have a product and just have a lot of IP patents then you may be correct.

However, BayStar may have ulterior motives behind their request for a refund - such as we've just mentioned. But it may be in a position to milk SCO for all it's worth and then bail out. The Bank of Canada is essentially clearing a path to bail out as well IMHO. Bottom line, considering the recent layoffs as well, is that SCO is most likely scrounging for cash. What like lawyers are cheap? They aren't getting any revenue from the license/extortion scheme, they aren't selling a product, they have been black listed by almost (if not all) developers (save those that may still work there - do they still employ any devs?)and essentially have not other revenue channels.

Let's face it. SCO could potentially drag this out for years. But they need money and aren't making any at the moment. They did get a reprieve via Baystar/PIPE/BOC but that appears to be teneous at best. I think that in 6 months SCO well start to exhibit Cheyne-Stokes breathing - aka the death rattle. The stock was down to around $6/share yesterday and dropping (check that, I just checked again and it's at $5.99/share and falling). Any takers on how long before SCO stock is hovering around the price it was before they started they fiasco? I thought not.

This should be a wake up call for F/OSS. Watch the code base and keep it clean (though most are already painfully aware of this). The big question is what the hell do we do about the USPTO. They are out of touch and really not geared for handling the wave of technology advancements to date and unable to keep up with the breakneck speed of development and changes. I mean for crying out loud they gave M$ a patent on an Apple - not as in MAC but as in fruit to eat. They claim it was a mistake but it begs the question - what else "don't" they get? And I wonder if SCO and friends are banking on the Judges and Juries in the same manner - hoping they don't "get it" in order to "educate" them the SCO way.

But of course they appear to be doing with the IP litigation what they did with their software business - that is to run it into the ground with a flaming wake of burned bridges behind them.

Final request by gearmonger · 2004-05-07 09:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Will the last lawyer out of the building please turn off the lights?

Re:good by jvagner · 2004-05-07 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll say this: If their workers had any convictions, SCO wouldn't have to lay anyone off because they would have been gone first.

Really, who the hell is still there? Maybe only those who've been looking for the last 6 mos and couldn't get a job anywhere else...?

Anyone with hardline skills should have found work a while ago and walked.

Re:Thank Churchil by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is not the end.
This is not even the begining of the end.
But it is the end of the beginning.

Re:Yesssss by justsomebody · 2004-05-07 09:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actualy, not.

As one investor is changing non-voting for voting stocks, and the other (Baystar is related to MS) proclaiming that SCO is not experienced to deal these legal situations (and buying first ones stocks).

In my opinion Baystar;)MS is aiming to prolong this situation as long as possible, and thus buying shares from RBC.

There might be the change, but probably only about who is leading this fiasco.

But to be truthfull, I really don't understand why they prolong this. There was no benefit and Linux is still gaining in the same measure as it was (there was some research that showed that)

--
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition

All I can say is... by Penguinshit · 2004-05-07 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative

...ouch...

--

I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-05-07 09:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Good Lord. RBC is not divesting itself of SCO stock. They are converting preferred to common. Whole different thing.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. by MyHair · 2004-05-07 10:03 · Score: 5, Informative

They are converting 1/3 of their preferred stock at an enormous loss (13.50 vs. curent price 5.94) and selling 2/3.

The prevailing presumption is that they sold the 2/3 at a loss and will strategically dump the common stock. Keeping the common stock after a move like this wouldn't seem to make sense, but there is probably more going on than any of us know.

So they divested 2/3 of their stock for unknown terms, lost some benefits of the PIPE deal and are holding 1/3 of their original investment at >50% loss over 7 months. They presumably had the option to force redemption like Baystar, and being the majority investor would get their slice of the pie first. Instead they wait to weeks and pull this. Sounds like they're cutting their losses and splitting to me.

But admittedly that's not certain yet.

My best guess is that RBC prefered cutting losses and dropping SCOX rather than fighting about redemption, while Baystar has committed to redemption or bullying, and doubling their stock holdings for presumably a nice discount increases their leverage against SCO management and increases their redemption penalty should they win.

RBC folded, Baystar raised, and SCO is "all in".

Of course, The Simpsons reference is valid by Orion+Blastar · 2004-05-07 09:12 · Score: 5, Funny

as apparently Mr. Burns is running SCO and has a whole team of Homer Simpsons working for him. :)

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

No, it goes like this. by autopr0n · 2004-05-07 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Baystar has what, $80 million in SCO?. If sco wins, they'll be worth billions. So even if there's only a 1% they win, it's still worth the risk.

But, you say, they'll lose all their money if they lose!

That's not true either. Baystar can invest another X in Linux companies, which, if SCO wins will see their stock rise by, suppose, Y%. As long as X * Y > X + 80 million, Baystar will make a profit. And, if SCO wins, they make an emense profit.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Investment advice please by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2004-05-07 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

An investing question from a non expert.

If RBC places an order sell these freaking shares at any price, as fast as you can!!! for a volume of 740,740 shares...

would this potentially affect the stock price?

in what way might the price be affected?

what effect, if any, might this have on the long term outlook of the company?

are there any other concerns a wise investor should have?

Any good investing tips appreciated. (Especially when they are from an internet site! rather than from someone qualified to give investment advice.)

Thanks!

--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

Depends what they're doing by vlad_petric · 2004-05-07 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Think how much loss in revenue to Linux companies they created ... There are quite a few executives who thought "let's wait until the trial is over before we make any move to Linux".

Such lawyers destroy, people employed by Linux companies create, and generate real economical value.

--

The Raven

Obligatory TMBG Quote by Snap+E+Tom · 2004-05-07 09:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Selling to Baystar? Huh? by menscher · 2004-05-07 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I thought Baystar wanted out? Why would they be buying more stock? Anyone else confused? Or am I missing something obvious?

Re:good by Hays · 2004-05-07 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think a reasonably smart SCO employ would have been sending out resumes for the past 6 months.

SCO is not a corp.; it's a publicly traded lawsuit by moeymo · 2004-05-07 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

So much of the company's value is in its claim to Unix/Linux and so little in its actual products. If the suit fails, SCO will go.

Sell!

Risk vs Reward by Greyfox · 2004-05-07 09:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Too bad Darl probably won't suffer too badly for driving the company into the ground like this. The risk/reward of being a CEO should be more along the lines of:

Stock goes up => Big Bonus

Stock goes down => We get your liver

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

What if....... by zakezuke · 2004-05-07 09:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is neither a flame nor usual SCO bashing.

My impression of SCO was it was the product you bought 10 years ago because that power accounting and database software was written for it, dated but does the job and has never rarely failed. Near as I'm aware, they had a somewhat stable customer base, and while they didn't inovate, they started to incorperate much in the way of OSS in order to keep up with the pack, and perhaps actually get some new customers. Selling them old old and true power apps, but save them lots of money by giving them Samba.

I am curious about one thing. What if SCO never fired the first shot in this IP war? Would they still need to downsize? Would they still be considered a dying company? Would it be possible for SCO to continue to exist supplying to main stream folk or would they have simply continued to fade away? After all a successful company isn't always the one with the most money, but one which has found a balance between supply and demand, much easier with a software company then one which produces a physical product.

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.

Re:What if....... by _|()|\| · 2004-05-07 11:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

What if SCO never fired the first shot in this IP war? ... Would it be possible for SCO to continue to exist supplying to main stream folk or would they have simply continued to fade away?
We could consider numerous "what-if" scenarios. Most of the good ones would require smarter, more visionary executives than Caldera or SCO ever employed. Part of Red Hat's continued success is due to strategic investments in research and development, especially the kernel improvements by Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, and Ingo Molnar. SuSE has made similar investments, garnering the attention of IBM and Novell.
I don't think OpenServer and UnixWare were good enough, especially under the care of such a small company, to compete with Linux or BSD. System V was a significant, though largely symbolic, asset. Caldera could have parlayed it into success in the Linux market. (Who knows: UnitedLinux might have grown to 1.1 or 2.0.) Instead, it was eaten from the inside out by old-SCO opportunists.
Re:What if....... by mec · 2004-05-07 13:00 · Score: 2, Informative

SCO balance sheet

Have a look at the figures for October 2001 versus October 2002. In October 2002, SCO had $21 million in current assets and $27 million in current liabilities.

SCO income statement

In the year ended October 2002, SCO had a net loss of $25 million.

SCO would have died some time in spring or summer 2003 without the massive cash infusion from Microsoft and Sun. All those employees would have been laid off a year ago. These employees kept their jobs for a year longer (and for 75% of them, they still are keeping their jobs) because of this evil, evil lawsuit. (And no, I don't think that makes the lawsuit a good thing).

Re:Hallelujah! by KnightStalker · 2004-05-07 09:45 · Score: 2, Funny

They need to get rid of that senior management that thought of this stupid scheme

Unfortunately, they can't lay Ballmer off...

--
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."

Re:Selling to Baystar? Huh? by Cid+Highwind · 2004-05-07 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

They don't want out. Baystar was using the threat of dumping their stock to keep SCO managment in line. They wanted SCO to halt what was left of their software development and sales operations and "concentrate on IP licensing and enforcment". Darl and co. agreed, Baystar withdrew their threat, and now we're seeing the last of SCO's programmers getting downsized.

--
0 1 - just my two bits

Didio's next comments: by schon · 2004-05-07 09:46 · Score: 2, Funny

"I think this is great for SCO - RBC decided that it loved them so much, that it chose to convert 10,000 of its' A-1 shares to common stock, at over TWICE the market rate! How much more of a vote of confidence can you get?

"Their total relinquishment of any controlling interest in SCO is a full ringing endorsement of the current SCO management and business direction.

"Combine this with the fact that the balance of their A-1 shares went to Baystar, a company that has come out in full support of SCO's legal case, means that this is all good news!"
</voice>

I feel dirty now.

Re:Oh, shut the fuck up by DAldredge · 2004-05-07 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Somethings are right and some are wrong.

I have stood up for what I believe and have paid the costs more than once. IOW, I have quit and been fired for refusing to do the wrong thing & I do have a family.

Not HaHa! - This may be a very bad thing. by ErikTheRed · 2004-05-07 09:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Ok, so while there is some short-term negative publicity around one major investor bailing, it leaves Baystar capital with much more power over SCO. It's widely conjectured that Baystar's recent abortive bailing-out was actually just a public slap to SCO to get them to make some executive changes. Now Baystar's leverage is increased substantially. It has occurred to myself and to others that what Baystar may be able to do is effectively "foreclose" on SCO - not in the traditional debt sense, but they'll be able to stick a gun to SCO's head and force them to replace board members under threat of Baystar's pulling out, which would effectively bankrupt SCO. Round one - replace the CFO. Round two - put some of our buddies here on the board to provide you with some sage advice.

Then we have Baystar (the Microsoft puppet) effectively inheriting all of the IP claims (by proxy, but the result is the same), which they think are meritorious. This could result in a whole new round of litigation run by someone who's not a complete jackass.

The new litigation may (will)also be a complete pile of bullshit, but it still ties things up in the courts for years. Be afraid, very afraid.

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana

Re:Not HaHa! - This may be a very bad thing. by ErikTheRed · 2004-05-07 10:40 · Score: 2, Funny

You know, being under fire for violating antitrust laws and the like.
Google the following terms: Advocate, Follower, Toady, Cat's Paw, Pawn, Dupe, Patsy, Puppet, Stooge, Tool, Minion, Cohort, and Mini-Me.

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana

Re:Shareholders' lament by Backov · 2004-05-07 09:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Alternatively, you could have watched lots of Bugs Bunny as a child, which is how I know that song.

--
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.

BayStar webmaster think strategy's upside down. by ron_ivi · 2004-05-07 09:57 · Score: 4, Funny

I find it quite amusng that the strategy page of the baystar website is some upside down guys (looks like his head is in the sand) with the caption "look beyond".

Wonder if their webmaster's making fun of them. In addition the funny image, of course netcraft confirms baystar's running BSD. Does that mean they're dead?

Even Better... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 10:04 · Score: 5, Funny

In A.D. 2003
War was beginning

Darl: What happen?
Blake: Somebody set up us the DDOS.
Mark: We get signal.
Darl: What!
Blake: Main screen turn on.
Darl: It's You!!
Linus: How are you gentlemen!!
Linus: All your IP are belong to us.
Linus: You are on the way to destruction.
Darl: What you say!!
Linus: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Linus: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Darl: Take off every 'IP claim'!!
Blake: You know what you doing.
Darl: Move 'IP claim'.
Darl: For great injustice.

I should hope NOT by stealth.c · 2004-05-07 10:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

It was SCO that kept begging for more time, SCO that kept offering cumbersome, insufficient responses, SCO that kept showing up at deadlines empty-handed, SCO that came up with every excuse it possibly could to never actually be in a court room. IBM has quietly bided its time, patiently giving SCO all the rope it ever wanted. And now, precisely as expected, they hang themselves.

It shouldn't be difficult to counter the spin when the facts are on your side.

Re:I should hope NOT by thebatlab · 2004-05-07 10:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

"It shouldn't be difficult to counter the spin when the facts are on your side."

Are you sure about that? Facts generally get overridden by whoever is yelling the loudest.

Had to cover shorts by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-07 10:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Remember they said when they first got into this, that they were covering short positions. Anything they shorted above the $13.50 price is now profit.

$80 million? It was $20M before today by McSpew · 2004-05-07 10:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Baystar has what, $80 million in SCO?

What? The original Baystar/RBC investment was $50 million combined, of which, Baystar's part was $20 million. RBC picked up the other $30 million. Today, RBC converted one-third of its investment into SCOX common stock. The remaining two-thirds was sold to Baystar for an undisclosed sum of money, but you can bet it's a helluvalot less than the original $20 million Baystar spent for the same quantity of Series A-1 shares in October.

To be blunt, RBC took it in the shorts on this investment. Baystar screwed them hard. Baystar hooked RBC up with the original PIPE, and then turned around and flushed the value down the toilet with their notice to SCO that they intended to get their money back. They didn't give any indication to RBC about the grounds they were using to justify their demand for the return of capital, so RBC had to stand by and watch their own deadline for making a similar demand expire.

Once that deadline passed, Baystar effectively had first-dibs on picking over SCO's carcass in an ensuing fight. RBC would have to wait until after Baystar got its money back (even though Baystar's investment was smaller) before making any attempt to recover its own investment. This forced RBC's hand. They could sit around and watch their entire $30 million get flushed down the drain, or they could sell (at a loss) most of their investment to Baystar and convert the rest to common stock (at a price that's nearly 2.5x the market price for those common stock shares) in the hopes that they'll get something if SCO wins the lottery.

Unless RBC never expected to make money on this deal for some obscure tax benefit, they got hosed badly. I'd expect to see the idiot at RBC who signed off on this deal resigning very soon to "pursue other opportunities."

Baystar, meanwhile, doubles their position in SCO's Series A-1 convertible preferred stock for a sum that's almost certainly a lot less than the $20 million they paid for the other 20,000 shares, thus reducing their average share price and giving them an ironclad fist around SCO's throat.

Baystar's not as stupid as we originally thought. RBC, meanwhile, comes off looking much stupider than we originally thought.

You're perceptive, however by tkrotchko · 2004-05-07 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember that IBM may have a substantial claim against SCO, Novell, claims it actually owns the IP, and even Red Hat may get a whack.

Best case scenario is (a) Novell does in fact show that it owns SYS V (because all claims against Unix would be gone because Novell has released GPL code (b) IBM wins the suit and owns the remaining SCO assets (c) Daryl freaks and essentially closes the company (d) Baystar is left holding the bag (e) some DA grows a set and starts an investigation and indicts a lot of people

You've got to admit, that would be justice in every quarter. Complete win for Linux.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you

Re:You're perceptive, however by ErikTheRed · 2004-05-07 11:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, but you're assuming that A) SCO's actual intent is to win the Lawsuit (and not just FUD Linux), and B) Baystar loves SCO's management and believes in them soooo much that they will let them continue on down their merry path to distruction.

Bzzzzzzt! Thank you for playing.

Once Baystar controls SCO, they can have SCO sell their IP "assets" or interests or whatever to another company (let's call it BaySCO). The amount could even be something as ridiculous as CN$1 (a loony for a bunch of loonies). The incoming legal fire from IBM et al turns SCO into a smoking crater, but then BaySCO is free to start the whole process all over again. At this point, IBM & friends can essentially try to get a court to declare (without naming a specific defendant) that there is no infringement, breach of contract, etc., but even the threats down the road are really limited only by BaySCO (and their successors') imagination - keep in mind that the SCO complaints against IBM over the last year or so have changed so much as to not even resemble the original suit filed.

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Re:You're perceptive, however by zurab · 2004-05-07 14:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your sarcasm in (A) and (B) are contradictory. Are you saying that Baystar doesn't want SCO to win the IBM lawsuit? The way I see it is that SCO (i.e. their management) never wanted to win a lawsuit, they just wanted to cash out before it was too late for SCO the company.

Unless you are saying that both Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada knew this prior to their investments; AND Baystar just wanted to replace the management and take over the company "assets" from the very beginning when they considered their investments. In that case, it's who's playing who. But I don't think so, I think they realized they were fooled and Baystar now realizes they have a tough decision to make whether it's worth to grab onto the last straws. Because the way the lawsuit is heading right now is that SCO is not providing anything substantial, while IBM will likely nail SCO in their countersuit. So what would you do from this point on if you were Baystar in this situation? I'd want my money back too, and what Baystar is doing is the only way to get it back.

Re:Guess it depends on who you are... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-05-07 11:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

From Philadelphia, New York, and Virginia things are pretty bleak if you want to work for anything more than $8/hour.

I've had companies tell me to my face that they aren't looking from someone with such "Senior" qualifications as mine. Read that they found a kid out of school who doesn't have a family to support and will work for circus peanuts and a pat on the head.

Keep in mind, I'm 29, and if that qualifies me for being an old-timer in industry I can't imagine what a 45 year old must be going through. I know of more than one former Engineer who is driving a bus right now to make ends meet. Of the 45 year old variety, mind you.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

The only task remaining... by eagl · 2004-05-07 11:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The company is going away, so the only thing remaining is to ensure that the people responsible for unleashing the lawsuits and threats don't come away from this mess with any extra cash in their pockets. They started the whole lawsuit thing to get rich off of other people's work, and it would be a shame if the top management who dreamed up the scheme got away with more than cab fare in their pockets.

Of course the lawyers are getting away with most of the profit, but everyone knows that shooting lawyers is the only way to keep them from getting rich off of everyone else's problems so there's no polite solution there.

Excellent, they're losing a fortune on the deal by Performer+Guy · 2004-05-07 11:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

They've just managed to half their money with this deal, rather than try to get blood out of the SCO stone they're converting to common stock which they're entitled to do, but if you look at the numbers each $1000 preferred share becomes several shares of common stock valued at around $440. Excuse me for finding this hillarious. They thought they could make a quick buck by funsing a viscious and meritless intellectual property attack on IBM and the Linux community in general. Now they're paying the price. I just hope SCO stock tanks some more before these Canadian vultures can cash out.

As for Baystar trying to get blood out of the stone they helped forge, same story, let's hope they never recoup their cash. Maybe it'll be a lesson to the next bunch of greedy S.O.B.s who think about funding the next group of crooks to come along.

Re:Dirty drug infested hippy town by Elentar · 2004-05-07 11:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

As opposed to dirty drug-infested cowtowns (alcohol) or dirty drug-infested cities, or dirty drug-infested redneck towns, or just plain dirty drug-infested _any place_.

Or, if you prefer, dirty Christian-infested towns. Why it's illegal to smoke a joint but perfectly legal for zealots to brainwash children, to deny adults the right to make their own medical choices, to teach women that they are secondary to men, to send the poor and minorities off to die while the rich laugh, to allow corporations to dictate legislation and to force the values of a few hypocrites onto people who don't agree with them, I will never understand.

I live in Santa Cruz, and I believe in letting people live the life they have chosen for themselves, to the greatest extent possible. You will never find me living in a bible town in Georgia, because I refuse to surround myself with backward, living-in-denial unhappy religious fanatics taking out their unnatural angst in the area I live in.

To those of you who practice religion and let it simply influence your innate sense of moral purpose, I give my compliments. If you must chose one, always chose the Covenenant of Grace over the Covenant of Works.

-Elentar

--
The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.

Re:Canadians vs. Americans by Bastian · 2004-05-07 11:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Americans have long thought they are smarter than Canadians because they have all sorts of things like numerous wars, less than five per cent of their original forest, and the Disney corporation.

Coincidentally, Canadians have long thought that they are smarter for the same reason.

(Apologies to Douglas Adams.)

Deficit is not a bad thing! Weak $$ is great! by Starrider · 2004-05-07 11:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Deficit has no tangible negative effect on the economy. Keynesian economic models prove deficit spending in a recession stimulates the economy. When the economy recovers, the deficits turn into surpluses. If you had read proven economic history, instead of smoking that John Kerry hash you might know this. John Kerry has no economic plan other than to raise taxes, so he whines about the deficit. (Oh yeah I know he wants a middle class tax cut, but Bill Clinton promised that in 1992 as well...I guess when they say tax "cut", they mean tax "hike").

Furthermore, a weak US dollar is great for the US economy. A weak US dollar makes our exports cheaper for foreigners and makes imports more expensive for the locals. The result is more American goods are bought as opposed to a strong US dollar.

One last note, another poster was complaining that consumer debt was at an all time high, including mortgage debt. There is a logical explaination for mortgage debt to be at an all time high -- home ownership is at the highest levels in history!

People without kids talking smack. by Breakfast+Cereal · 2004-05-07 11:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Try that with a family. Try that with kids who have to change schools and make new friends every time you decide you don't like your job.

Try that with kids and a spouse who also has to work. Are you going to insist that your spouse also dump his/her job and move 1500 miles away? And hopefully find another job there? What if he/she loves his/her job?

Try that as a single parent when you live close to family members who help you with day care.

Try that with a sick family member whose medical condition will suddenly become "pre-existing" and not eligible for coverage when you change HMOs.

In other words, try that when you're not a healthy young 20-something with no strings. Try that when you're like most of the population.

Hey, I know the feeling of quitting a job that sucked and I was glad I was in a position once to do that once upon a time. It's great! But it's a luxury, and some things are worth sticking with the most soul crushing job in the world.

Re:People without kids talking smack. by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-05-07 22:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, I know the feeling of quitting a job that sucked and I was glad I was in a position once to do that once upon a time. It's great! But it's a luxury, and some things are worth sticking with the most soul crushing job in the world.
I, for one, wouldn't want to set your example for my kids. Yeah, some jobs you should keep in spite of how much they suck, but some jobs require you to leave them regardless of whether or not you'll be working again soon after. Your actions have greater ramifications, and the moral lessons you teach are just as important, if not more important, than the fiscal lessons you teach.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

IP by Dieppe · 2004-05-07 11:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

The company has come under fire in the last year since initiating controversial litigation to protect intellectual property rights on parts of the Linux operating system, source code that had been considered open source or freely exchanged technology. Recently the SCO Group notified companies using the technology in question that they would be sued if they didn't pay up.

This might be poignant, but at least if I were to murder someone and the news media were reporting on it they would say "...an alleged murderer"... Why can't they say "alleged intellectual property rights" as SCO hasn't proved anything yet and there is still doubt here.

----
SCO... An alleged company with an alleged business plan.

SCOX support level at 6? by Animats · 2004-05-07 12:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

There seems to be an effort by somebody to keep the price from dropping below 6.0. Look at the 5 day chart. Every time the price dips below 6.0, there's a buy to push it back up to 6, but no higher. Thursday's chart is striking in this respect. It looks like somebody had a limit order in at 6.0. This may be SCO's announced "stock buyback" program. It will be interesting to see the SEC filings for the next quarter, when we find out how much cash went into the buyback.

SCOX closed at 6.01 on Thursday and 5.99 on Friday. That does look like an effort to maintain the price.

This only works until SCO runs out of cash, of course.

Wait till Monday by Teahouse · 2004-05-07 12:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

They made this announcement after trading hours on Friday, and they already closed below $6 today. If you have a stock tracker, set it to watch SCOX on Monday morning when the market opens. They will easily lose another $.50 by the end of next week. Also, it will be interesting to see how many of the board members quietly dump stock in after hours trading this weekend. Half of them notified the FTC that they would be cashing in stock in small increments. I am betting those increments add up to 150,000 common shares this weekend.

My friend (the evil capitalist) has said that this has always been a race between winning the legal cases, and the stock hitting the magic $4.50 share price when the market figired out the scam. At $4.50, there would likely be a removal of The Darl and his cronies and a cancellation of all court cases and a demand for a new CEO to turn SCO around by INNOVATING instead of LITIGATING. I am watching to see if he's right. See you Monday!

--
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright

Re:What did they gain? by mec · 2004-05-07 13:37 · Score: 2

The preferred shares have "$1000" printed on them but that doesn't mean that anybody guarantees they will pay $1000 for them.

RBC traded each preferred share for 74.074 common shares. There are lots of people who will pay, oh, $5.98 per common share, although that price might go up or down when the markets re-open. 74.074 shares of SCOX is worth about $430 right now.

It's not like RBC lost all that money today, because those shares of preferred stock can't be sold for $1000 anyways. No one will pay $1000 for them. RBC *recognized* the loss today, that's all.

Latest insider trades of SCOX stock by Big+Bob+the+Finder · 2004-05-07 14:27 · Score: 2, Informative

For those that might be interested, here is the most recent insider trades from SCO.

4/07/04 JEFF F HUNSAKER Divisional Officer 5,976 Open Market Sale proceeds of $66,558.83

4/07/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Proposed Sale (Form 144) estimated proceeds of $126,817.11

4/07/04 JEFF F HUNSAKER Vice President 5,976 Proposed Sale (Form 144) estimated proceeds of $64,002.95

4/07/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 2,363 Exercise of Stock Options at cost of $2,646.55

4/07/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,481 Open Market Sale proceeds of $128,736.45

3/03/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Proposed Sale (Form 144) estimated proceeds of $137,237.19

3/03/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Exercise of Stock Options at cost of $13,261.92

3/03/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Open Market Sale proceeds of $143,276.10

2/04/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Exercise of Stock Options at cost of $13,261.92

2/04/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Open Market Sale proceeds of $170,510.39

The noise you hear by BCW2 · 2004-05-07 14:43 · Score: 2, Funny

is the pitter patter of tiny feet. The rats (investors) are abandoning a sinking ship. It will soon turn into a stampede.

Enjoy the show!

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.

Re:Wise Canadian company? by gnuman99 · 2004-05-07 14:49 · Score: 2, Funny

It seems that RBC's investment motto is "Buy high, sell low". Just like Baystar's investment strategy, it seems upside down!

Slashdot Mirror

Royal Bank of Canada Cashes Out of SCO; SCO Begins Layoffs

156 of 585 comments (clear)