Slashdot Mirror
SCO posts Q2 Loss, Gets $11k from Linux
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.
Yosemite Darl is the meanest, toughest, rootin-est,tootin-est cowboy there ever was and you should be ashamed of yourself for rustlin' away his code, pardner. Why its getting so a man can't earn a dishonest livin no more.
... "I can't get a long little dogey, I can't even get one that's small, I can't get a long little dogey, I can't get a dogey at all". (Profuse apologies to Yosemite Sam)
Now let's all sing with Darl (while reading the SCO finances)
What's next? CNET gets a "Cease & Desist" letter from SCO because the company's name was used in this story?
Hmmm.
Darl's going to turn around and claim that this is proof that the Linux Business models don't work.
SCOwned.
If SCO is having Q2 losses, maybe they should upgrade to Quake 3, or at least get a new videocard.
--Kevin
Link to the realease on the SCO's site
From SCO Keeps SinkingThu Motley Fool
"Management blamed the slow sales on a "lack of SCOsource licensing revenue." SCOsource is the Linux users' shakedown program. Apparently, no one is paying up. It took in $11,000 last quarter. That's not a typo. President and CEO Darl McBride paid more lip service to "increasing shareholder value," but you really have to wonder about the viability of his vision when his firm's most engrossing initiative brings in less money than the guys who mow lawns in my neighborhood."
rofl :)
I mean, this post might be modded funny, but I swear, I didn't make it up. It's right out of the article.
"Our revenue for the second quarter was consistent with our expectation and we also incurred significant expenses for the impairment of goodwill and intangibles and for the exchange of our Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock. Both of these charges negatively impacted our second quarter results," said Darl McBride, President and CEO. "As the company looks forward to the last two quarters of fiscal year 2004 we are committed to increasing shareholder value through profitable operations and increasing cash flow from our UNIX division as well as remaining focused on our intellectual property lawsuits and licensing strategies."
Sometimes you don't even have to try to make a funny post, because the dialogue you'd put in Darl's mouth is actually less funny than his own idiotic ramblings.
From a similar article
"A legal victory looks highly unlikely, and even if a decision went SCO's way, the probable remedy would not be money for SCO, but a rewrite for Linux, something the open-source community would accomplish in the blink of an eye."
Wow, at $699 a go, they managed to license 15 copies!
Go SCO!
John.
Maybe we should ask him...
Bill, what do you think?
Hope Darryl clarified on this during their 11am EDT conference today.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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.
They still have $6,767,000 worth of goodwill - I guess they didn't subtract out the badwill.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Midnight, January 1, 1970
Remember, these aren't techies talking about the technical merits of the case. These are financial guys commenting about SCO's quality as an investment. It nice to see someone other than technical folk scoffing at this sideshow.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I seem to remember once reading that a few yeard ago Darl was the CEO of a company that sued IBM over intellectual property rights. The article stated that on that occasion IBM bought out the company and Darl received a big payout from the shareholders.
Some people say that SCO are only attacking IBM this time in an attempt to be bought out. In fact I just found this, an open statement by Darl that he would welcome IBM buying SCO to make the problem go away: SCO's CEO says buyout could end Linux fight. I think that settles it. SCO doesn't want to win in court they don't even want to go to court, they just want to scare IBM into buying them out.
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
The stock has been around $5 ± 0.50 for weeks. You can't short a NASDAQ listed stock when the price is below $5, so the bears drop out at that point. Trading volume has been down for weeks. SCO's concern with being listed on some additional exchanges may be that they have different rules on short positions, allowing shorting at lower price points.
The full numbers from this quarter aren't out yet, so it's hard to figure out when they run out of cash. It looks like they have three to six quarters of cash left at their current burn rate, but that's a rough estimate. Unless they get new financing, it looks like they won't make it to the IBM trial date in 2005.
At this point, the remaining stockholders who think SCO has a case against IBM might well ask why SCO wants additional delay. SCO can't afford much more delay.
How about a business karma modifier?
I am very happy to read that SCO has made such a large net loss. This is not because support for Linux as much as it is because I do not support the type of business practice employed by SCO.
I strongly believe that companies have a duty not only to their owners, but also to their customers, suppliers, and even to their competitors. The last one, the duty to competitors, is a duty to compete based on a better products and services, better marketing, better pricing, a better overall customer experience, etc.
I think that, while litigation is sometimes necessary, most issues can be settled outside of the court system in a mutually beneficial way, or at least in a way that minimizes the damages to all parties involved. Further, litigation and other legal actions (lobbying for legislation, etc.) should not be employed as a source of profit for a company, but only to solve legitimate problems.
In the case of SCO, I think they have thrown all good business practices out the window, while embracing litigation as a potential source of profit. Essentially, instead of elevating themselves by making sound decisions and consistently improving themselves, they are trying to become elevated by pushing others down. Kind of like the "everything is relative" argument - if you push someone down, then you could say that you have elevated yourself even though you stayed in the same place. This is what SCO is trying to do, and it is not beneficial to anybody except, if they manage to pull it off, themselves. This is a very egoistic and self centered company with no desire to make anything of value. And companies like this should not be supported.
For those reasons, I am glad that SCO had these losses, and I hope that investors pull their investments, new investors don't buy SCO stock, and potential customers go elsewhere. This evil company should not be supported by anybody.
Not to mention that I strongly believe that there is no legal issue of any SCO code being copied into other software. In fact, I believe quite the opposite: Either:
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.
DOn't tell me that *foreign brokers* are evading SEC rules *which don't apply to them* by *trading in their own countries*! What fiends!
Now, if we can only link them to terrorists, we can torture them.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Ah, then obviously they're listing the gross goodwill. I doubt they have any net goodwill at all.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
And to clarify further: Goodwill is where you will find SCO stock certificates in about 6 months. They will be used to wrap fragile pottery and dinner plates, so they will not break on the way home.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.