Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO posts Q2 Loss, Gets $11k from Linux

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

Paul Hands sent us linkage to SCOs Q2 Financials. "The highlights are that SCOX only collected $11k (yes, K) for that much-discussed license for EV1 and other Licensees. Cost of that $11k was well over $4M. Overall, revenue was just over $10M, and they made a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $14,959,000, or $1.06 per diluted common share." Update According to the SCO conference call, this isn't accurate.. their Linux extortion income will be listed in the Q3 financials.

15 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. article. by abscondment · · Score: 5, Informative

    Link to the realease on the SCO's site

  2. Text is wrong, this quarter does not include EV1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    During the conference call earlier in the day, SCO stated that the EV1 revenue was not included in this quarter, and will start showing up in Q3.

  3. BitTorrent of SCO Conference Call today. by kb8rln · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok here is the Bittorrent of the SCO Conference Call today in mp3 format.

    http://sco.penguinman.com
  4. Re:Connections by abscondment · · Score: 4, Informative

    What you mean to say is, you have Google:

    Results for the 1 Darl McBride in Utah:

    Darl C Mcbride - (801) 424-2006 - 1799 Vintage Oak Ln, Salt Lake City, UT 84121

  5. Re:Only 11k? Am I missing something? by Malor · · Score: 4, Informative
    They're being, as usual, deliberately deceptive. (shock, horror!) With all the other numbers, they specifically mention last year and this year, but in the case of the SCOSource revenue, they mention ONLY last year in the main article body. They go right from 'SCOSource revenue for 2003' to 'total revenue for the first two quarters of 2004'. They never mention SCOSource revenue for 2004 in the main article body. They're hoping, by clever wording, that you won't notice.

    To find the $11K number, you have to dig down into the numbers below. Lining things up on Slashdot is very difficult, so I'll just paste the relevant line:

    SCOsource licensing revenue 11 8,250 31 8,250
    That's telling you they made $11k in the prior three months, and $31K in the prior six months, as compared to $8250 last year. In 2003, it would appear, they made all their money in Q2, 8.25 million.
  6. Darl's Cease & Desist Blunder by bstadil · · Score: 4, Informative
    As usual Darl et al didn't do their homework. From Korh over at SCOX Yahoo site

    " it turns out that EVERY SINGLE company listed on NASDAQ is traded on the 'unofficial regulated market' at Berlin-Bremen.

    Note that Darl, during the call, said that these were "unregulated" markets, which is clearly not the case."

    "About Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange: Like all other German exchanges the Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange is separated in three market segments: Official Market; Regulated Market and Unofficial Regulated Market. Special significance is attributed to the Unofficial Regulated Market at the Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange. With more than 8,000 national and international companies admitted the Unofficial Regulated Market unparalleled -- both in terms of size and diversity. .. All companies listed on the NASDAQ, NYSE, and several OTCBB companies are listed on the Unofficial Regulated Market of the Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange, giving investors the largest choice of American stocks in Europe."

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  7. Re:Already delisted? by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're looking on the wrong exchange. SCOX is listed on NASDAQ, not NYSE.

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  8. Re:And the best bit is... by CrazyLion · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to clarify. Goodwill in this case is an accounting concept referring to accounting treatments of premium paid in a merger. Until fairly recently Goodwill used to be amortized (i.e. company would write it off over time). Under new rules, it's carried indefinitely and assessed for impariment. According to SCO's March '04 10-Q, most of their goodwill comes from acquisition of Vultus, Inc. Not very much related to the loss of face in the Linux debucle.

  9. Piercing the Corperate Veil by alficles · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually, IBM may be able to Pierce the Corporate Veil and go after Darl himself. While they may or may not be able to put him in jail, they can sue him for way more than he owns (which is much more than he is worth). In order to go after Darl, IBM would have to prove three things: (quoted from linked article)
    According to the court, the instrumentality rule requires proof of three elements:
    1. complete domination and control of both the entity's policy and business practices;
    2. use of such control to commit fraud or wrong, breach of a legal duty, or a dishonest or unjust act (such as using such control to avoid personal liability previously assumed by an individual); and
    3. that the aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or loss.
    IMO, the Nazgul should have no trouble with showing these in a countersuit. Darl is not going to be out of hot water any time soon.
  10. "Goodwill" by Theatetus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Goodwill is a term of art in accounting. There's a brief summary on Wikipedia. Essentially, "goodwill" is the magic dark matter of accounting that is used to explain whither otherwise inexplicable money goes and whence it comes. For instance, say one of your company's buildings appraised for $1 million but somebody else bought it for $2 million. That goes down as $1 million of "goodwill" so that the numbers balance out. Conversely, if someone else's building appraised for $2 million but he sold it to you for $1 million, that's another example of $1 million of goodwill on your books.

    Hint relevant to this situation: it applies to securities as well.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
    1. Re:"Goodwill" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Heh, no. What you describe is profit. Goodwill is always immaterial, it's the reputation of the company and its products, value of its trademarks, such things, expressed in money.

      E.g. if you spend $1m on advertising and your reputation goes high (your company has higher value), you estimate how higher the value is and account: $1m off your bank account (assets) to advertising (expenses), the value increase (say $2m) to goodwill (assets) and some revenue account.

      However, what SCO did is quite opposite, they had to lower the goodwill and increase their expenses by the same value. This is done when your real reputation goes so low that it's evident it does not have the same value as in accounting.

      This is good, because managers can perhaps better understand what is going on when they see SCO lowering their goodwill.

      (Sorry for my english, some of the terms may not be right but the main idea is.)

    2. Re:"Goodwill" by cweditor · · Score: 5, Informative

      The charge is for "the impairment of goodwill and intangibles." This is a specific accounting situation covering the decline in value of an intangible asset such as a corporate brand, see the Financial Accounting Standards Board statement 142 or the March 2002 CPA Journal.

    3. Re:"Goodwill" by llefler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's a good thing you are not an accountant.

      Goodwill is a perceived value that is higher than book value. For example, you decide you want to expand your web hosting business. A friend of yours is also in the web hosting business, but wants to move on to another career and sells his business to you. Now he has done a lot of work and his customers really like doing business with his company. So when he sells his business to you, he wants more than the book value of his assets because he has built a loyal customer base that will become yours along with his business assets. The difference between the book value of his company, and what you actually have to pay him for it, goes into your accounts as goodwill so that you can depreciate it like any other asset.

      It's not that accounting is odd or a black art, it's that you don't understand that every dollar has to be accounted for and properly categorized.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
  11. BAH HAH HAH HAH by GoatEnigma · · Score: 4, Informative
    Share Statistics
    Shares Outstanding: 14.42M
    Float: 7.80M
    Shares Short (as of 10-May-04): 4.62M
    Short % of Float (as of 10-May-04): 59.27%
    Shares Short (prior month): 3.95M

    Bwa hah hah! What a ridiculously mismanaged company.

  12. The worst, slimiest, crookedest bit by rewt66 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The "loss of goodwill" means that a company they bought didn't do as well as they thought it would, as others have pointed out here. But near the bottom of this story on Groklaw, somebody anonymous points out the real dirt. The company that didn't do so well was Vultus. SCO bought Vultus from Canopy, which is the private outfit that owns almost half of SCO.

    This sure smells like the minority owners (Canopy) are bleeding cash out of a publicly-traded company (SCO) by selling it a loser.

    Canopy has done stuff like this before. When one of their companies goes bankrupt, they (Canopy) wind up with the assets that matter, whether or not the company was publicly traded. They do this by making sure that the company that is going under owes Canopy money, so that Canopy is a creditor at bankruptcy time.

    In other words:
    1. Create a private company (company A).
    2. Take company A public. Company A now has lots of money.
    3. Create another private company (company B).
    4. Sell company B to company A.
    5. Profit!

    But wait, there's more...

    6. Make sure company A owes you money.
    7. Let company A go bankrupt.
    8. Using the assets that you get back from the bankruptcy, go to step 1!