Slashdot Mirror
SCO Shares Plunge, Canopy Management Change
bretberger writes "Shares in Utah's SCO Group went into a tailspin late Tuesday as news spread of both deepening losses and an apparent coup at the software company's corporate parent, the Canopy Group."
So what, exactly, is the deal with Ms Didio? I could understand her possibly (giving her benefit of the doubt) originally siding with SCO as an analyst... but over time her constant support, constant praise, and general attempts at propaganda make it more than obvious she's got a heavy leash being held by someone over there.
Does she expect to retain any value as an "independant analyst" in the post-SCO market? It's all too common for analysts to be paid to support a product or company, but they're usually a little less blatant about it. Who would value her opinion, knowing that her opinion is for sale?
Though... I suspect (recently) that it's more Canopy holding her leash, than SCO, since she seems to choose Canopy over SCO when she has to (like in her recent comments - she still didn't say anything bad about them, but saved all her real praise for her theoretical overlords at Canopy).
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
I want to see the stock go through the fscking floor. I want to see SCOm buried. I want to see Darl grimacing in pain as he bends over to pick up Bubba's soap *again* in the prison shower.
I've watched the stock of this worthless piece of shit company go up and down before, and was frankly surprised to read that it had risen back up to $5, since the last time I looked it was closer to $3. 10% isn't a Slashbash-worthy story.
Ralphie and Darcy getting the boot - now *that* shoulda been the headline. Guess it doesn't catch the eye like the word "plummet" does...
Die, SCO, die! And take the fools like Darla with you...
What I want to know is how illegal this whole racket was...
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Check out the Didiot's comments:
"New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
Honestly, I don't think it matters how hard SCO get's pushed - if IBM doesn't wanna, then it ain't gonna happen... and IBM knows they're gonna win.
I just picture it as Peewee Herman in the ring with Mike Tyson - near the end of the 12th round, Tyson is untouched, and Peewee is a bleeding smudge on the canvas as his manager thinks "Hmm, maybe we should ask Tyson if he wants to call it a draw."
That Mustard is a bit of a hatchet man. (walks into a sinking ship and throws so many people overboard that its starts floating.. then points that barely floating ship back in a direction that will assure the safety of whomever is left)
Couple that with the CFO's leaving and the REALLY piss poor financials that were released yesterday.. I reckon we're about to see the end of this whole saga.
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
> Settle? Does anyone see IBM settling?
Depends how much SCO is willing to offer. Certainly, IBM isn't going to
*give* SCO anything in a settlement, if that's what you mean, but they might
be persuaded to call off their lawyers and forget the whole thing ever
happened if SCO offers them enough. (I'm not sure what SCO has to offer,
though. All their remaining material assets perhaps...)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
"[But] we believe there is value in our Unix licensing business and we offer our customers . . . value they need to be made aware of."
Here's a lawsuit....consider yourself aware of the value.
Maybe I am just missing some context that was removed with the deleted text, but everything about this sentence sounds pathetic. With their cash reserves, I'm pretty sure he's not referring to marketing and training seminars. The "value" he would so much like to convey is merely the value in avoiding attourney fees.
What's more important is their balance sheet.
$10M in the bank and a burn rate of $3M per quarter.
Unless they get some extra revenue within 6 months they're toast.
I love how as soon as SCOX stock takes a drop, people on /. scream about how it serves them right, and everyone knew they didn't have a chance, and etc...
Yesterday, SCOX lost 33 cents and today SCOX lost 34 cents. But on Dec 1 and 2, SCOX rose 27 cents and 35 cents, respectively. Of course, with other movements in between, it's still 19 cents higher than what it was at the beginning of the day on Dec 1.
I'm not going to say that SCO has a case, that they're a good long- or short- term investment, or that anyone should short the stock. But please, people, stop using the stock market numbers to tell everyone about how SCO is going down.
Yes, but I'm sure Boies & Co is well aware it's a losing battle. They'll fight it as long as they can make money doing it and I'm sure they're not interested in sticking it out on the one in a trillion shot that SCO exists for a reason.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
""The fate of SCO is one of the big question marks. New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
This remark just made my day. Imagine SCO trying to settle, being pressured by it's parent company, sitting with IBM attourneys, trying to 'reach out' to IBM to make some sort of agreement. I figure they'll eventually both agree that SCO has wasted all of their time and money on something that is going to eventually cost it's upper management their careers, and hopefully their freedom (but I doubt they'll realize that quite yet.)
and this:
"We're in a challenging business environment," he said during an earnings teleconference. "[But] we believe there is value in our Unix licensing business and we offer our customers . . . value they need to be made aware of."
It's straight out of The Godfather. Way to tell it, Darl!
Novell will be the one to come in and snatch up SCOX.
Novell is making Linux the centerpiece of its technology strategy, so it has something to loose.
Ending this thing once and for all would endear the Linux community to Novell, so it has something to gain.
It also has $475M earmarked for acquisitions.
Novell has a history with SCO/Canopy. Ray Noorda was the chairman at Novell before he started Caldera. Darcy Mott was Novell's Treasurer, and R. Duff Thompson was Senior Vice President of Corporate Development. Even Darl McBride came through Novell.
SCOX has a $79M market cap. For this small portion of their acquisition warchest, all this goes away and they get real linux street cred. Their marketing department should be lobbying hardest for this one.
When they're done with that they'll buy UNIX(TM) from The Open Group and geeks will write songs about them.
Only if they want to crush Redhat, that is.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I know you're kidding but...
The Santa Cruz Operation actually started out as a pretty cool company with a great coporate culture here in Santa Cruz, California. I knew a lot of the engineers and I was even part of their High-Tech Corporate Bowling League, which was a joke but kind of spooky when you look back at it. At some point in the mid-1990's the executives started taking the company in questionable directions. Every year the staff puts on the SCO follies. One year they did a parody of A Christmas Carole in which the CEO of SCO saw a vision of the future if he continued in his evil ways. Then there were a series of mergers and renamings that I didn't really follow. And there they are now.
Heh, good to point this out. If you look at the "Insider Trades" link on Yahoo Finance, SCO insiders have sold of 2,246,000 shares in the last 6 months (~25%). Looks like they don't have much faith in their company..
SCOX as a business is poison. Who wants to do business with a company that sues its customers? Even if they do lose. And what about a number of pending rulings on any number of the legal fronts which could sink SCOX's legal shenanigans. Pfeh! Better expected ROI on a lottery ticket.
-Blaine
Perhaps because the countersuits are stronger than the original suit.
I'm familiar with a company that in the early 90s found that AT&T flagrantly violated one if it's pattents, and gleefully sent them a threatening letter about suing them. On the exact last day AT&T had to respond, these guys recieved a 2-foot stack of AT&T patents that their product infringed. They ended up with an IP-sharing settlement where they paid AT&T a small amount.