Slashdot Mirror
SCO On the Rocks
Netromancer wrote in to alert us to a Businessweek Online article discussing the downward spiral in SCO's fortunes and luck. From the article: "The mouse that roared is barely squeaking these days. A string of recent setbacks raises grave questions about SCO's finances, its court case, and its management."
..especially the management at SCO. You think they're upset about this? It was obvious from the very beginning that they didn't have the long term benefit of the company in mind when they started all this garbage. The people in charge of SCO, like so many other dead corps of the past, don't care what happens to the company. If you think they haven't gotten fabulously rich while all this has been going on you're deluding yourself.
At this point they're probably running company affairs from their yachts, and when it implodes, so what? Won't hurt them at all, and in a year or two they'll be hired on by some other group of corporate leeches and they'll drain another company dry.
It's just a shame that in this case it impacts more than just the poor slobs working at the company in question (of course, if they're STILL there after all this they deserve it) but something that millions all over the globe care about. But, hey, it was good for business- after all no publicity is bad publicity, right?
Evil will always win, because Good is DUMB
There is is nothing immoral about suing a large corporation. Now, suing them for something unfounded costing taxpayer money while simultaniously raising costs that get passed to the consumer, THAT is immoral.
I still feel kinda bad for the SCO employees who had nothing to do with the litigation and have faced an extra hard time getting employment after leaving because "They were there".
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
Yeah management jobs are always a win-win situation in the U.S.
1.) They can do a good job and get paid x number of dollars.
2.) They do a bad job and get axed. But rewarded with a massive severance package.
It's unfair in every way to the share holders.
Doesn't the court have some basic responsibility to IBM to end this case now that SCO has come up short?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
In order for you to sell a stock short, your broker has to find someone who owns it and is willing to lend it to you. After all, whoever buys it from you is expecting to take delivery of the stock, and you don't have it to deliver.
Nowadays, most stock is held in so-called "street name": the owner doesn't actually hold certificates but rather leaves it in his broker's name. Stock held this way is available for borrowing. For example, every brokerage firm has *some* customer who is long, say, MSFT but has left it in street name; if you want to short MSFT, the firm can borrow the stock from that customer. (That right to borrow your stock is explicitly written into the terms and conditions of brokerage accounts.)
Stocks in a death spiral, such as SCOX / SCOXE, are often hard to locate for borrowing and subsequent short selling. Under such circumstances, the prices of put options (the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at a specified price until a specified date) can and do go through the roof.
Incidentally, the money to be made shorting SCOX / SCOXE has already been made. There's not much more room left for the stock to go down.
Nothing has been tested in court, that's what the judge means by "not a single disputed fact". However a great deal has been semi-tested in that SCO couldn't find anything:
1) The origins of Linux pan out
2) The multi-processor stuff that Alan Cox put in Linux came from where he says it did
3) Unix is solely a trademark
4) There isn't any SCO code in Linux.
Still to be tested will be SCO's theory of law
5) Free copyright licenses that encourage cooperation but not commerce have full force of law.
Once you've "in," nothing matters anymore. In extreme cases you might get fired and be forced to retire in luxury.