Slashdot Mirror


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

jbell99999 is the first one to submit news that the Royal Bank of Canada is divesting itself of SCO stock. They're selling part of their preferred stock to Baystar, which has already indicated that they want to redeem their shares, and converting the rest to regular stock, which they can presumably sell on the open market. In other SCO news, Versicherung writes "The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting, SCO is laying off 10 percent of its worldwide workforce. The cuts come less than a month after the company brought on a new chief financial officer and just before the company ended its second fiscal quarter April 30." See also stories at Eweek and Linuxinsider.com.

93 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig. Simpsons Quote by Big+Toe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Haha!

  2. Thank "The Doors.".. by pegr · · 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?

    1. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by daeley · · 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.
    2. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Shakrai · · 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.
    3. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by pr0c · · 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.

    4. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Shakrai · · 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.
    5. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by el-spectre · · 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.
    6. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    7. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by digitalmuse · · 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
    8. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by slam+smith · · 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

    9. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Uber+Banker · · 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.

    10. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      sandbender n. [IBM] A person involved with silicon lithography and the physical design of chips. Compare ironmonger, polygon pusher.

    11. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by nlindstrom · · 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.

    12. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by el-spectre · · 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.
    13. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by aardvarkjoe · · 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?
    14. Re:Thank "The Doors.".. by fingerfucker · · 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!!!

  3. So the moral of this story.... by LordPhantom · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:So the moral of this story.... by slam+smith · · 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

      :-)

  4. Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Where have you been? by SoSueMe · · 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.

    2. Re:Where have you been? by AKnightCowboy · · 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.

    3. Re:Where have you been? by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · 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.
  5. who? by name773 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  6. 10%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    As Chairman Mao says, "the journey of a thousand li begins with one step."

    --------
    Free mobile porn

    1. Re:10%? by artwells · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. 10 Percent of their workforce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:10 Percent of their workforce! by Anonymous Coward · · 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)

  8. Smilin' like the Enzyte Guy by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Funny

    This news has me smilin' like the Enzyte Guy!

  9. Bre-X by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

    1. Re:Bre-X by IgnoramusMaximus · · 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.

    2. Re:Bre-X by Eggplant62 · · 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.
    3. Re:Bre-X by MikeCapone · · Score: 4, Funny

      unfortunately, we can't spell for shit.

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

    4. Re:Bre-X by ergo98 · · 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.

  10. Intellectual Property Claims? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re:Intellectual Property Claims? by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

  11. I again refer you to my post dt. July 02 by unixwin · · 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.
    1. Re:I again refer you to my post dt. July 02 by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  12. Not a Good Stock to Own by jcrash · · 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)
    1. Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by Jonboy+X · · 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
    2. Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by jjo · · 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).

    3. Re:Not a Good Stock to Own by schon · · 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)

  13. What do you bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  14. Re:good by DaHat · · 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).

  15. Lay-offs abroad? by BuddieFox · · 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? :)

  16. Layoffs are not nice by cwernli · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Layoffs are not nice by cwernli · · 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.

  17. It's not over yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  18. stock price by bhny · · 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.

    1. Re:stock price by peeping_Thomist · · 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
  19. Oblig. Star Wars reference by 3Cats · · 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

    1. Re:Oblig. Star Wars reference by space_biker · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  20. I know some of these people ... by JMZorko · · 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
    1. Re:I know some of these people ... by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tough Shit. They where working for the devil and they knew it.

    2. Re:I know some of these people ... by molarmass192 · · 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
    3. Re:I know some of these people ... by ChangeOnInstall · · 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)
  21. Heh.. Play with fire.. Get burned by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  22. SCO Imitates Art by yorgasor · · 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
    1. Re:SCO Imitates Art by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even their stupid business plans have prior art.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  23. I can't help feeling... by Phidoux · · 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.

  24. Bert Young by Jonboy+X · · 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
    1. Re:Bert Young by Zocalo · · 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!
  25. To get more customers by Salo2112 · · 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.

  26. Investment Strategy by Kozar_The_Malignant · · 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.
  27. Reminds me of Apocalypse now... by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Utah. Shit. I'm still in Utah.

  28. 10% is nothing... by taped2thedesk · · 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.

  29. Martyrdom by AndyCap · · 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.
    --

    1. Re:Martyrdom by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

  30. Well... by QuasiCoLtd · · 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.

  31. Re:Stupid RBC by Dav3K · · 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 .

  32. Re:good by cbovasso · · 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?
  33. Gotta Love Layoff Logic by PetoskeyGuy · · 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?

  34. A bad thing? by tlambert · · 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

    1. Re:A bad thing? by PsiPsiStar · · 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.
    2. Re:A bad thing? by crusher-1 · · 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.

  35. Final request by gearmonger · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  36. Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · 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
    1. Re:Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. by MyHair · · 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".

  37. Of course, The Simpsons reference is valid by Orion+Blastar · · 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.
  38. No, it goes like this. by autopr0n · · 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.
  39. Obligatory TMBG Quote by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  40. Risk vs Reward by Greyfox · · 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?

  41. What if....... by zakezuke · · 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.
  42. Re:Selling to Baystar? Huh? by Cid+Highwind · · 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
  43. Not HaHa! - This may be a very bad thing. by ErikTheRed · · 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
  44. BayStar webmaster think strategy's upside down. by ron_ivi · · 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?

  45. Even Better... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  46. I should hope NOT by stealth.c · · 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.

  47. $80 million? It was $20M before today by McSpew · · 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.

  48. You're perceptive, however by tkrotchko · · 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
  49. Excellent, they're losing a fortune on the deal by Performer+Guy · · 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.

  50. IP by Dieppe · · 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.

  51. SCOX support level at 6? by Animats · · 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.

  52. Wait till Monday by Teahouse · · 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