SCO Stock Continues Downward Spiral

tobiasly writes "TechNewsWorld reports that three and a half years after SCO saw its stock price increase tenfold to US$20.50 following the filing of its lawsuit against IBM, it closed Tuesday at US$2.28 per share, or two cents less than where it was before the lawsuit. This follows a sustained slide fed by poor earnings results and courthouse reversals which, according to OSDL CEO Stuart Cohen, shows that 'Linux and open source software are bigger than any one company. Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace.'"

Comments

so where's the SEC investigation?

[macadamia_harold]

TechNewsWorld reports that three and a half years after SCO saw its stock price increase tenfold to US$20.50 following the filing of its lawsuit against IBM, it closed Tuesday at US$2.28 per share, or two cents less than where it was before the lawsuit.

Where's the SEC investigation of the SCO executives? At this point, there's plenty of evidence that this entire IBM lawsuit was a pump-and-dump scheme. What's the deal?

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[bckrispi]

I haven't been paying attention to this case for the past, well, year. Did McBride or any execs cash out before it hit the bottom again? It should all be in the public SEC filings.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it was strictly pump-and-dump. SCO really thought it could make it selling fear licenses to companies using Linux. Some did cave unfortunately (like EV1).

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[It doesn't come easy]

Darl isn't listed as a major holder, so either he sold out long ago (over two years), he owns stock indirectly through third parties, or he doesn't own enough to be listed as a major holder.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is so much stolen code in the linux kernel that even SCO is having a hard time recognizing their code in that mix-match.

If they can have just a bit more time, their stock is going to soare. It's a BUY. I recommend SCOX.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[asuffield]

The SEC operates extremely slowly. It could be years before they get around to doing anything.

Also, they're quite busy and tend to ignore companies that are either small or dying, on the basis that a dying company is a problem which will resolve itself if ignored, and they have more important things to do.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[mysidia]

What a poor way for the SEC to handle such situations. The specific problem, if any, is with the management, not the relevant company -- the problem won't correct itself when management join another company after its death, and they may simply repeat the strategy, perhaps more ambitiously, since it paid off the last time... this could just bring down further other companies which were in dire straights before.

The management does their investors an extreme disservice, with their misguided efforts; surely they could come up with a better way of building a profitable business than relying off-chance that they might be able to kill Linux.

Surely a company should not invest its future in the outcome of a single lawsuit, if the evidence in the clear evidence available in their favor is lacking, and the theory of how they are likely to successfully argue their case, and whether the likely recovery of damages will outweigh the risk, are doubtful.

If the management cashed in their millions, perhaps the rest of the time actually pursuing the lawsuit is a thin veil, a farce, specifically and secretly designed to protect the perception of management's legitimacy to regulatory agencies, etc.

The lawsuit and arguments leading up to it may have been a staged thing, but they couldn't back down without admitting either an act of incompetence, OR an act of manipulating the market for SCO stock.

Until such time as the SCO management actually produce a credible case, and good solid evidence to back it up, it would seem they perpetuate a farce.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[canter]

More important things like prosecuting Martha Stewart? You'd think they could find the time to prosecute the real criminals.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[Mathness]

At this point, there's plenty of evidence that this entire IBM lawsuit was a pump-and-dump scheme.
I will bite, where is that evidence then? All I see is people claiming it to be pump and dump.
Selling stock when it is sudden worth ten times as much (who wouldn't?) isn't evidence of pump and dump. Given the context it can of course be suspicious.
If you accuse without any proof, you will just be doing what SCO have done for so long.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marta Stewart was a real criminal and I know at least 12 other people who agreed with that.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[ContractualObligatio]

I have no idea about this kind of thing. However, it could be argued that should SCO win the lawsuit, then their strategy will have been justified. If you accept that premise, then the SEC is obliged to wait until the case completes. The SEC does not have the right to take actions based on their expected outcome of a lawsuit. To do so would effectively be a summary judgement overriding the courts.

Additionally, even if the lawsuit should fail, it was public knowledge. The SEC might take the position that a sophisticated investor (which I think is their yardstick) would be expected to know that investing in a company on the basis of a single lawsuit against a large, well-reputed company is an extremely risky investment. It is not the SEC's job to stop people taking on risk, to stop idiots placing wild bets in the market place, or to decide when a stock is over-valued.

All that said, I would imagine that the conclusion of the lawsuit will provide a whole pile of information upon which it is possible to draw a conclusion as to what SCO's management was up to. They appear set to fail. The question is, will the court's conclusion suggest that they had no basis on which to start the lawsuit? If they actually had reason to start the lawsuit, but no real evidence to hope to win it, was it therefore a very risk undertaking? If so, the combination of a bad strategy (which was harmful to their main business) plus share dumping will leave them open to lawsuits and SEC investigations.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[NormalVisual]

Selling stock when it is sudden worth ten times as much (who wouldn't?) isn't evidence of pump and dump

Not in and of itself, but when insiders all of a sudden sell a boatload of shares when they'd sold nothing the over the previous year things start looking rather iffy, particularly when the timing of events that led to the stock price increase were directly controllable by management and just happened to coincide with planned sales.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[timeOday]

Selling stock when it is sudden worth ten times as much (who wouldn't?) isn't evidence of pump and dump.

Granted, sudden selling is only dumping if the reason the stock went up was because of "pumping" - personal actions by the seller to deceive buyers, hence raising the price without fundamentally increasing the value of the company. Which is exactly what happened here, don't you agree? Are you saying the burden is on us to prove SCO doesn't have a rock-solid legal case against IBM hidden away somewhere, after years of baseless legal maneuvering? That's bizarre.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[MightyMartian]

The government isn't going to go after SCO while there is still active litigation going on. That's why SCO is keeping this going on now, despite the fact that they and everyone else knows that they lost the fight before it even began. The SEC will be hands off until the whole steaming pile of shit is out of the courts.

That's not all there will be, of course. Darl and Co. will probably have shareholder lawsuits coming out the ying yang as well, although I've said it before and I'll say it again, every fucking mentally handicapped greedy sonofastupidbitch who invested so much as a dime in that crime ring deserves to lose every single penny. Anyone who thinks that extorting ill-conceived license fees constitutes a business plan shouldn't be allowed to waste court time.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[Mathness]

Granted, sudden selling is only dumping if the reason the stock went up was because of "pumping" - personal actions by the seller to deceive buyers, hence raising the price without fundamentally increasing the value of the company.
That is the missing evidence, right there. It is easy to look at the stock value and see that it increase ten fold and that trading increased as well. But those two go hand in hand, a stock that becomes valuable also gets a lot of trading since there are oppertunities to "score big" with short term tradeing.
SCOX went from a small trading and steady stock value, to a hot stock with high trade and value. That is not unique to SCOX in anyway.
It is of course suspicious, but that is a long way from a proven fact.
My point is, they get accused of pump and dump, but nobody have any evidence beyond the trading values and volume.
Presummingly the SEC is/will investigate if there is any wrong doing, and judge on that. Until then we only have opinions, which are not facts.

Are you saying the burden is on us to prove SCO doesn't have a rock-solid legal case against IBM hidden away somewhere, after years of baseless legal maneuvering?
That have nothing to do at all with what I said, I was only talking about the pump and dump, some claim SCO was doing. But since you brought it up, it is for the court to decide if they have a case or not.
But from the evidence we have seen so far, it sure looks like SCO doesn't have a case.

That's bizarre.
I find it bizarre that some require proof in one case, and doesn't in another case, even if it is the same company it is about.

Opinions are part of what makes us human, and how we shape our behaviour and view. Just don't lift opinions to facts, since that can skew your perception.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation?

[hedwards]

The thing to remember is that there probably isn't anything that the SEC can do in this case.
Running a business out of business and filing bad lawsuits is not something that is typically
the responsibility of the SEC to deal with.

As long as SCO has filed all the appropriate paperwork as required and it is accurate, the SEC
is unlikely to bother.

The fact that SCO has been going out of business for the last couple of years at least isn't
exactly privelidged information.

The end is near...

[It doesn't come easy]

Not to pick on poor ole SCO (just kidding, let's pick on em) but it's worse than that...back on March 14, 2002, they did a reverse stock split, 1 for 4, because the stock was doing so poorly. So, in fact a share would only be 57 cents today if it were not for that reverse split.

A close of $2.28 means the stock has lost about 98% of it's value over the last 7 years.

Re:The end is near...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reference price of $2.30 was in March *2003*, after the reverse split.

Re:The end is near...

[canuck57]

A close of $2.28 means the stock has lost about 98% of it's value over the last 7 years.

Sounds like NorTel without the stock split.

But the same applies, you would have been better to buy beer as you get to drink it and the empties are worth more.

Re:The end is near...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not to pick on poor ole SCO (just kidding, let's pick on em) but it's worse than that...back on March 14, 2002, they did a reverse stock split, 1 for 4, because the stock was doing so poorly. So, in fact a share would only be 57 cents today if it were not for that reverse split.

Which brings up the question: how low does your volume have to be before you're de-listed? If it's just a buck a share regardless of volume, I could put my lemonade stand up on the big board ... with only 50 shares traded.

Seriously, this stock is so thin that the pink sheets would probably laugh at it.

Still have a long way to go

[dtfinch]

I think they were at 60 cents before this all started.

Re:Still have a long way to go

[It doesn't come easy]

I believe you are correct. Lowest close was at $0.60 on June 26, 2002.

Re:Still have a long way to go

[It doesn't come easy]

However, I believe the $2.30 figure comes from the closing price on the day the lawsuit was officially filed. And it began it's stratospheric climb about two months later.

Re:Still have a long way to go

[Amazing Quantum Man]

They did a 1 for 4 reverse split in mid '02, which brought the price up to about 2.30.

Re:Still have a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

The price you are quoting was before the its case against IBM. SCO sued IBM for infringements in March 6, 2003 and its share price peaked to $22.29 in October 2003. The share price started to drop gradually in 2004 and dropped to $4 in mid 2004. The share price was more or less the same in till mid June 2006. It has started to decline afterwards to the current level.

If you see the balance sheet of the SCO, their revenue peaked in 2003, the year it sued IBM and declined afterwards. Also its cash flow statement was positive only in the year 2003. Basically SCO is a dead snake tried to surrogate itself by suing IBM.

More at
Google Finance SCO Page
SCO Finace Statements
SCO's stock price - Jan 2000 - till date

Re:Still have a long way to go

[drawfour]

Yes, they were, but WAY before it started. The lawsuit was filed March 6, 2003. If you don't believe me, go check your favorite source -- wikipedia. The 60 cents per share was back in 2002. When the lawsuit was filed, they were somewhere between $1.85 (Feb 28, 2003) and $3.10 (March 7, 2003 closing price). I got that information from Google finance. They don't have daily listings for prices, but I figure a range is good.

Re:Still have a long way to go

[mshiltonj]

Good sig, dude. Is there an attribution?

Re:Still have a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Shamelessly lifted from a slashdot post. Don't remember which one.

Re:Still have a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

it began it's stratospheric climb

"its".

Re:Still have a long way to go

[dylan_-]

First reference google has is Khasim, 22 June 2006

Audiences say it best when they....

[TheDarkener]

*clap clap clap clap*

The title should read...

[grumpyman]

...SCO executives continue to dump stock.

Re:The title should read...

[It doesn't come easy]

Actually, checking Yahoo, the last insider transaction was a non-public aquisition by Darcy Mott for 51,020 shares (for $3.92 per share, so it's lost almost half it's value). Nothing majorly going on with the stock, really, except Baystar Capital was dumping their's as fast as the SEC would allow at the end of 2004. Wonder how Baystar feels about their "investment" now?

Re:The title should read...

[killjoe]

Chances are baystar didn't lose a cent on the deal. First of all they had hedges, secondly they were merely a conduit for MS money. MS will make sure they get re-imbursed one way or another.

Re:The title should read...

[Anonymous Coward]

half it's value

"its".

dumping their's as fast as

"theirs".

bowl circler

[hedley]

Looks ready to auger in. Nice profit for the shorts on this one. When would you cover this one? There may be residual value at some point (office space, chairs etc). 20.5->0.25 or so would be my guess of maximal profit.

Bring it on. I think they should rename themselves Icarus Operation

H.

Re:bowl circler

[Anonymous Coward]

"There may be residual value at some point"

Remember that IBM have counterclaims.

Re:bowl circler

[rfunches]

When would you cover this one? There may be residual value at some point (office space, chairs etc). 20.5->0.25 or so would be my guess of maximal profit.

Book value on SCOX (assets minus liabilities, a measure of how over/undervalued a stock is) is 67 cents per share (adjusted for split) for the quarter ending 4/30/06, or a little over $14 million. It probably won't fall below .67/share.

What I find funny is that according to WSJ, there is one analyst still covering the stock with a buy rating. However, the analyst has not given any forward earnings estimates. Also shocking is just how shorted the stock is: 3.8 million shares, of only 15.1 million shares available to investors (21.09 million shares total outstanding). 25% of SCOX's public float is being shorted! And, if that isn't enough, look at this 8-K SEC filing:

Effective as of July 1, 2006, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company"), provided a salary increase for Sandeep Gupta, Chief Technology Officer of the Company. Mr. Gupta's annualized base salary was increased from $150,000 to $165,000. In addition, a one-time bonus of approximately $2,400 was provided for Mr. Gupta.

I do not own SCOX or any of the companies involved in SCO litigation.

Re:bowl circler

[Anonymous Coward]

bonus of approximately $2,400 was provided for Mr. Gupta.

Haha you know your company is doing great when executive bonuses go from personal jets and millions in cash to a taxi ride home and $2400.

Re:bowl circler

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be residual value at some point (office space, chairs etc)

Am am interested in some of these items of value. Please contact me with details of prices.

-- Steve Ballmer

Re:bowl circler

[kimvette]

Novell will have counterclaims as well, much larger claims than IBM's. Remember that SCO is in breach of contract with Novell, not having forked over the UNIX license fees they have collected.

Obligatory Nelson Muntz quote

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha!

Net Worth

[mlarios]

At this point, how much is the company even worth?

Re:Net Worth

[linuxhansl]

According to Yahoo, SCOX' market cap is 46.86 Mio.

I'm surprised a company that has no chance to sell anything ever again (after all who would buy anything from a company that is known to sue its customers) is still worth that much. In fact I'm surprised that SCO has any customers left at all.
And I sincerly hope that all the stock gamblers who bet on this frivilous lawsuit lost a shitload of money.

Re:Net Worth

[benna]

The market cap (total market value of all the stock) is $46.82 million, but the enterprise value, which represents the company's price to an acquirer, is $28.20 million, as a result of the substantial (relatively speaking) amount of cash on the balance sheet.

Re:Net Worth

[mlarios]

Couldn't Red Hat or IBM just aquire SCO and drop the lawsuits? They could even make their "products" open-source.

Re:Net Worth

[ZorbaTHut]

A lot of people think this is what SCO wants. "Sue IBM and get lots of money when we're bought out!" IBM, apparently, does not think this is behavior it should encourage, and so it's simply attempting to squash SCO like a bug. I've got no problem with this.

Re:Net Worth

[pete6677]

I'd say their only customers are those with existing SCO systems that have not been upgraded yet. It can be easier to just buy another SCO license than to migrate the entire thing. I'm sure nobody is actually doing all-new SCO installations anymore. Anyone with a current SCO system should definitely have a migration plan, because they will be stuck with an unsupported OS when SCO finally liquidates.

Re:Net Worth

[gerrysteele]

Yea your prob correct. I've seen SCO Unix out in the field, but they are all very very old installations

Re:Net Worth

[Forge]

It's worse than that.

The major client my company has which still runs SCO uses it on a server that must be certified by Auditors at enormous cost (It's a bank). The setup they have now has been in place for around 8 years and at the time they got it it cost 1/10 it's closest competitor.

They have bought replacement software + hardware anyway and are now doing internal validation (before sheling out a few million to the Auditors).

Re:Net Worth

[Stormwatch]

So they're like that guy who's willing to spend a million to squash RIAA's blackmail scheme rather than bow and pay those scumbags a couple thousand. If more people had such cojones, the world would be a better place!

Re:Net Worth

[NihilEst]

Couldn't have happened to a more worthy bunch of assholes, IMO. SCOX and this poor excuse for a strategy ought to be held up as an example to any and all CxOs who are tempted to follow this "get rich quick" scheme. Props to IBM for not giving in.

As to TFA, the SEC is so overloaded that they may never get around to McBride and his group of thieves. I don't expect justice in this case; but if it happens, I'll be pleasantly surprised. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Re:Net Worth

[stevesliva]

Well, at least they've carried no "goodwill" on the balance sheet since this whole thing started...

Re:Net Worth

[LWATCDR]

"So they're like that guy who's willing to spend a million to squash RIAA's blackmail scheme rather than bow and pay those scumbags a couple thousand. If more people had such cojones, the world would be a better place!"

Yea right... Easy to say if you don't have a home and children.
Isn't it a bit harsh to expect someone to risk their families future?
Yea good for IBM. But let's face it. It is really easy to say what risks others should take.

Re:Net Worth

[SEE]

One of the Darl McBride interviews along the line included something to the effect that he didn't understand why IBM didn't just buy SCO to make the trouble go away. And the agreement by which it hired its lawfirm, IIRC, includes a specific clause where the firm gets a significant chunk of any buyout of SCO. So there's evidence (well, for you, there's my hearsay) that the lawsuit may have been brought in the first place specifically to get SCO bought by IBM.

IBM hasn't said anything about it, but I assume they want to send the clear message that if you try to extort IBM into buying your failing company by filing a lawsuit, IBM will instead stomp you flat.

Re:Net Worth

[benna]

They do give some value to their brand name. One would think it should be listed as a liablity.

Re:Net Worth

[16K Ram Pack]

Why would they bother now? The SCO case is as good as dead. Very few people are still holding off on Linux because of it.

Not Fair

[tux_fairy]

Fuck You. I'm Darl Mc Bride. You can't do this to me. You suck! I don't like you. I'm gonna tell my mommy...

Re:Not Fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Darl's mommy. I don't like Darl either.

Re:Not Fair

[StringBlade]

I was winning...I woulda won!

Yay!

[B3ryllium]

Yay! Let's make biscuits!

(But seriously, as soon as RoyalBank/BayStar Capital pulled out, I think their funding prospects tanked - now they're just a silly waste of money to anyone who does the slightest bit of research before buying. And anyone who doesn't research an investment is risking a complete fleecing anyways, regardless of what company it is :))

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gir? Is that you? Where's my soda? Bring me the moose, it is time!

Burn Baby Burn!

[BigCheese]

I just hope they don't go completely down the tubes before IBM's lawyers eat them alive.

Re:Burn Baby Burn!

[It doesn't come easy]

Hmmm...maybe IBM should invest in SCO so as to keep them afloat for a while?

Re:Burn Baby Burn!

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Hmmm...maybe IBM should invest in SCO so as to keep them afloat for a while?

Sounds like a good idea. Invest enough in SCO (though third parties, of course) to keep it alive long enough for IBM lawyers to slowly tear it to pieces. They wouldn't have to say a word after that. It would probably be the last frivolous lawsuit against them for a very long time.

Re:Burn Baby Burn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, buy stock of a company that is in shitty situation all over the courts so that you will lose not only money, but reputation just to make some kind of stupid example. Shooting your own leg, what a great idea. Your expertise is really amazing, please write a book about it so we'll be able to not read it.

Re:Burn Baby Burn!

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Pathetic troll, did you even read my post? I know four sentences is pretty heavy going, but the interesting content appears after the first sentence.

Re:Burn Baby Burn!

[WilliamSChips]

You can't just pile SCO stock on it. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes.

Venture investors

[darkonc]

The people who were probably (hopefully) the most likely investors in SCOX were likely to have been the kind of people who invest in venture funds -- and don't mind a 10-1 long shot as long as the likely profits are at least 15-1. SCO was one of those.... Not too likely to win, but if they did, they might win big.

Now their ods are waaaay to long for anybody's stomach, and probably the only thing keeping the stock out of the sub $1 market is the many short sellers who still have to cover their positions from time to time. -- I mean, who else in their right mind is going to buy SCO stock these days, other than an insider on orders from 'higher up'?

Re:Venture investors

[stevesliva]

I mean, who else in their right mind is going to buy SCO stock these days, other than an insider on orders from 'higher up'?

Novell or IBM or Redhat or Oracle or Sun. Although it seems now that they have succeeded in making the company cheaper for anyone to acquire. Good job!

On the other news...makers of Phantom Game Console

[k2005quark]

to sue Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony for IP theft. More suits against other manufacturers will follow. Claims the industry leader in Fake Entertainment Systems, "we claim numerous patents for sections of code commonly used in Vaporware. It's impossible to assess damages at this time, but we believe it's in the trillions."

IBM could just buy them out

[benna]

Perhaps IBM should just buy them out at this point. They might even save on legal fees. SCO's enterprise value of $28.2 million pales in comparison to the $12.5 billion that IBM has in cash alone.

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[MoonFog]

And reward the owners and leaders that got them into this mess? IBM should make sure they cannot get off their feet again, not back them up with money.

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[colinrichardday]

Perhaps IBM doesn't want to reward SCO for its behavior?

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[geoff lane]

No, at this point IBM is being accused of many things by TSG and clearly wants either the accusations to be thrown out by the court or a trial to clear their name.

Sometimes reputation has to be publically defended.

Of course, there is the alternative theory, IBM lawyers like to play with their lunch before eating it :-)

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[jonwil]

IBM cant buy any SCO stock. If they do, it looks like IBM is "giving in" (i.e. buying them out instead of fighting).

Plus, thats assuming that they could convince those who hold the levers at SCO to sell up (if the rumors are true and Microsoft etc are the ones who are really behind SCO and the lawsuit, they are going to want to keep fighting to do as much damage to linux as they can)

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[benna]

There shareholders would vote on it, and management wouldn't be able to convince anyone to vote no to any premium at all.

If IBM did buy SCO, they could have the pleasure of firing everyone there.

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[StupidKatz]

If IBM did buy SCO, they could have the pleasure of firing everyone there.

Except for the fact that the crooks behind this mess all have golden parachutes which would receive funding from such a buyout. Instead, IBM is not likely to pay one red cent for SCO, but merely crush them in court (as it is currently doing).

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[Anonymous Coward]

No, IBM needs to start to push to put people in Jail, from accountants, lawyers, and execs who spent staff retirement funds, and the people who were 'in' on it, even to the point of delaying things.
If things are not destroyed, they can scan documents, and put SCO's old stuff online, so the online community can look for wrongs.

By doing so, all those lost IBM sales - because spineless govt. depts' put some 'not legal questionmark' excuse to trim their decisions, evaporate overnight.

If IBM finds some Skeletons in the closet, they can start picking off any helpers and financiers, and perhaps their backers. The press column inches will be the best advertising ever.

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[pdschmid]

Why not? I am sure the lawsuit costs IBM more than what SCO is worth. Buy SCO, fire everyone and make SCO's IP freely available to everyone. Advertise it is "it was nice playing with you guys while it lasted, but now we ran out of patience with you".
Of course, IBM could just wait till SCO loses the lawsuit and then buy them for a few bucks to get their IP.

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree! These crooks need to do time! PERIOD

Re:IBM could just buy them out

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor bastards, being toyed with before having the Nazgul consume their very souls. Feh, serves them right I say.

Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER

[Anonymous Coward]

Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER.

Short that Shit!

[WinkingChicken]

Looks like a great investment opportunity. The US is a capilalist-democracy, where dollars vote. Cast your vote by shorting their stock. Make money and help rid the world of SCO in one shot...brilliant!

Re:Short that Shit!

[mysidia]

Heh.. good luck finding shares of SCO to borrow in order to short them, it might not be all that easy; SCO already seems to have about 20% short interest.

Shorting SCO would be extremely risky, even if you know for a fact that they fail... after all, their price could surge (temporarily) on news, like some new initiative, or getting a stay of execution (or other sort of time extension or minor positive development with respect to their lawsuit), causing a squeeze, or prompting some shorters to lock in their profits, ahead of further gains, for instance.

Also, they don't seem to be optionable....

Re:Short that Shit!

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

"good luck finding shares of SCO to borrow"

That doesn't seem to stop anyone from shorting, at least the professional scammers and hedge funds. Everyone (SEC) lets them get away with it too, so I wish I could get in a hedge fund because they are the ones making money at the expense of regular investors.

I remember reading an article in which the owner of a company had every single stock certificate that was issued in his posession and yet millions continued to trade each day.

http://www.thesanitycheck.com/
http://www.thesanitycheck.com/Default.aspx?tabid=6 6&EntryID=385
http://www.thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/ tabid/56/EntryID/350/Default.aspx
http://www.businessjive.com/nss/darkside.html
http://faulkingtruth.com/Articles/LettersToEditor/ 1018.html

http://faulkingtruth.com/Articles/LettersToEditor/ 1031.html
"Can it get any more blatant than this? Look at all the SEC departures over these past years and note how many are moving over to cushy jobs working at firms whose clients are these big Hedge Funds. SEC Director of Enforcement Steve Cutler, US Attorney Ken Breen, and now Hansen have all left their federal posts to take lucrative (cannot be turned down) offers from the Hedge Fund industry. "

http://www.cmkxshareholderscoalition.net/

ever heard of Overstock.com OSTK, or Novastar Financial NFI? plenty of stocks are victims.
There are now a zillion imaginary shares in the market, and nobody has to own up to them.

SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares.

[macadamia_harold]

* Opinder Bawa has one filing for having sold 15,000 shares, and another for 8,000 shares. He would appear to have sold all the shares he possesses (but he still has a lot of options).

* Robert Bench has three filings: 7000 shares, 5000 shares, and 4100 shares.

* Jeff Hunsaker sold 5000 shares at the beginning of June.

* Darl McBride sold 7000 shares just after the suit was filed.

That's millions of dollars in stock sales. Given that the stock price skyrocketed when they announced the lawsuit, and the executive stock dumping began shortly thereafter, what do you make of this situation?

Re:SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares.

[marcello_dl]

That's millions of dollars in stock sales. Given that the stock price skyrocketed when they announced the lawsuit, and the executive stock dumping began shortly thereafter, what do you make of this situation?

me, nothing. I already wanted to hang McBride by the balls anyway :)
Seriously, people placed their money betting on SCO success in harming free software? well too bad for them. They actually helped SCO, so If they lose money I gloat in 32-bit color.

Re:SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares.

[Atzanteol]

As far as I know so long as they report everything properly there's nothing illegal about an executive selling stock when their stock price goes up.

Re:SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares.

[syscrash2k]

It isn't really 32 bit colour; it's 24 bit colour with 8 bits reserved for an alpha channel. With the alpha channel applied to the 24 bits, it's still 24 bit colour.

Re:SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares.

[RobertLTux]

okay so http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/SCOsinks.jpg would make a cool image after you mod it into a 1080p 32 bit color gloating (maybe add some fx to the water??)

Good To Know...

[nemmi]

Well well, it's good to know that their stock is finally neck-in-neck for value as my SCO admin certifications have been since I obtained them.

So in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

...now is a good time to BUY?!?!? You have just made me a very rich man.

I misread that...

[jpardey]

...as SCO stock jumps the shark. Seems appropriate, but when?

Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[jkrise]

"It shows that Linux and open source software are bigger than any one company. Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace. SCO . . . is dead."

I think the victory is bigger than just the downfall of SCO. This shows that any number of Closed Source companies, working in concert / collusion / tandem... have lost to one single man - Richard Stallman, and his GPL. It is the GPL which has tightened the noose around SCO, completely puncturing the SCO case, since they themselves were offering the 'infringing code' under the GPL. Linux and Linus Torvalds are merely incidental, given the magnitude of the victory we are seeing now... in fact, Linus was hardly involved in the case at all.

This is not just IBM vs SCO. Let's remember even IBM is not entirely behind Open Source, they have patents and interests in the Closed Source arena as well. In the ordinary world, if IBM wins vs SCO, they would control the entire Linux market, but because of the GPL, the entire Open Source community wins! In fact, this squarely places the spotlight on IBM now, specially since Lenovo is pre-loading Linux. Will IBM abandon their entire Closed Source strategy, and become the Google of the Services segment, in a truly Open Source way? Time will tell...

Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Sun, Oracle etc. are losing. Try hard they may, but they have failed to negatively affect the marketshare and mindshare of Open Source products and the philosophy behind it. The day is not far off when Apple and MS are quoted below $1. On that day, the victory will be complete.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

RE:["Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Sun, Oracle etc. are losing"]

considerig the incredibly high prices they ask for their products i can understand why the US & world market looking towards GNU/GPLed (Linux) software...

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[zootm]

On an idealistic "free software" note: This is a battle for freedom, not against oppression. The objective is not to kill MS or Apple (that would benefit no-one), it's to get them to accept Free Software, and embrace and produce it themselves. When Free Software surpasses them and if they don't change, they will die, that's just the way it goes. But the idea behind Free Software is not to "kill" anyone, it's just to be better. A genuine victory would be for Free Software to just become "how it's done", and for market leaders to all embrace these techniques.

Victory is Free Software as the norm, not the killing of other companies. That's a hollow goal.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[beheaderaswp]

While I'd not want to take *anything* away from the contributions of RMS, I don't think he deserves sainthood.

Stallman would not have, nor could have, fought this fight alone.

He is the person responsible for the idea. And it's a good idea.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[jkrise]

" This is a battle for freedom, not against oppression.....Victory is Free Software as the norm, not the killing of other companies . That's a hollow goal."

Hmmm.. very nice point, and very-well articulated as well. Thanks for re-orienting my perspectives a bit.

However, in the interim period before the goal of Free Software norm is achieved, don't you think the battle against oppression is a much more potent and tangible motivating force? Sayings like "The kite rises higher AGAINST the wind" and something like "In the run-up to the big victory in the Great War, some symbolic wins in smaller and lesser battles are important" come to mind.

The companies I mentioned in my original post have been tenacious in their efforts to practise and spread the gospel of the Closed Source world. Worse, they have deliberately abused their financial and market powers to denigrate the Free Software philosophy.

While the destruction of these entities, and their insidious philosophies would admittedly be a short-sighted and a hollow goal, it would indeed constitue a milestone in the larger goal of a Free Software world. Thoughts?

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[zootm]

However, in the interim period before the goal of Free Software norm is achieved, don't you think the battle against oppression is a much more potent and tangible motivating force?

I just think it shifts the focus away from the merits of Free Software, and towards the shortfallings of other people. It also characterises Free Software as a fringe element, and a bitter one at that. I just don't think it's a useful goal.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[jkrise]

While I'd not want to take *anything* away from the contributions of RMS, I don't think he deserves sainthood.

So many entities on either side of the Free / Closed philosophy... and that includes Microsoft and Linus Torvalds, have changed their stance / approach / press-releases / licensing models etc. Over the past 15 years and more, Stallman has been expounding his thoughts with consistency and prescience.

Considering he is a mere individual, this indeed seems REMARKABLE and certainly worthy of sainthood.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[jkrise]

It also characterises Free Software as a fringe element, and a bitter one at that.

I think it is important to understand the enormous Money and Muscle power that Closed source giants enjoy. Mere Free Software is useless if the hardware will not tolerate freedom - TiVO devices, and branded PCs from Dell, printers from HP, video cards from NVidia etc. being examples. Or if no one develops on top of Free Software (the Sun Java trap). Unless a few Big Name firms (and their dubious philosophies and business practices) are destroyed, what use is Free Software?

Probably explains why Stallman has not stopped after merely drafting GPL3, he's actively protesting against oppression as well.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[NickFortune]

This shows that any number of Closed Source companies, working in concert / collusion / tandem... have lost to one single man - Richard Stallman, and his GPL.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Ben Franklin was solely responsible for the US victories in WWII.

Really, if we have to credit a single person for saving the universe, my nomination would go to PJ over on Groklaw. And I'm sure she'd be the first to say that she couldn't have done it alone.

All credit to Stallman for the GPL, for the foresight he showed, and for sticking to his guns over the years. But that doesn't mean we have to credit him as being solely responsible for every victory of open source movement.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[dacarr]

Ten years ago I predicted the complete failure of Microsoft within three years thanks to Linux. Microsoft, thanks to Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, ME (yes, I know), NT, etc., is not only still alive, but kicking some serious ass money wise.

To give you an idea of what you're up against with MSFT, you're looking at a company whose founder - Bill Gates - is worth so much money, he cannot spend all of the interest he makes from it in one day - in fact, I would have to guess that he could sustain the company for a couple of years on that interest alone before having to dip into his own fortune. Apple is more likely to tank than Microsoft, but not much more - they have an income and a killer product.

Point being is that it's not ideology that runs the market, it's money and marketing. If it were ideology, Stallman and the FSF could conceivably be the Evil Empire.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[jambarama]

This shows that any number of Closed Source companies, working in concert / collusion / tandem... have lost to one single man - Richard Stallman, and his GPL. Plus IBM's millions of dollars, lawyer expertise, and tenacity. (Just imagine if SCO sued Linus Torvaalds instead of IBM - it might be a different issue).

Seriously you believe this? Really I'm not trolling, I just don't understand why a victory in a lawsuit against IBM (and incidentally, GNU/Linux) signals the end of proprietary software. Just because the license is valid, and no one swiped any source, doesn't mean all closed-source stuff will fail - to me it just means that SCO was a crap business. As far as I can tell, companies will still produce closed-source stuff and will continue to make money doing it.

That said, the GPL has some advantages in lawsuits like this - it is quite resistant to copyright issues. If a GPL'd program has some swiped code in it, and if we know where the code is, it is much more trivial to replace and prove that the infringing code is gone. Of course due to the fragmented nature, and low cost, of Linux it'd be harder to pay damages if found guilty.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Try hard they may, but they have failed to negatively affect the marketshare and mindshare of Open Source products and the philosophy behind it. The day is not far off when Apple and MS are quoted below $1. On that day, the victory will be complete.

Dude. You sound like some weird open-source John Galt. "He stepped to the window and pointed to the skyscrapers of the city. He said that we had to extinguish the lights of the world, and when we would see the lights of New York go out, we would know that our job was done."

Atlas merely shrugged. He didn't toss the world down and stomp on it.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[Millenniumman]

Open source software is great. It allows people to contribute to its development. It allows unlimited, albeit uncertain, resources in getting a product made, ported, etc.

Proprietary software is great. It allows companies to hire groups of dedicated engineers to build a product and then fund further development and improvement. It helps meet consumers, and not just developers, needs. It is generally faster and more focused than open source. It gives people control over their creations. Most of all, it provides incentive to create them.

I, personally, don't like the GPL as the only license for software. I see open source as a tool to create better software and share it, not as a philosophy. If OSS helps a proprietary software company, why not let them use it? Just because they don't want to give away their software for free?

I hope that someone commercializes and adds a nice interface to some *nix OS and gets about 30% marketshare. Open standards would improve and gain popularity, Windows would improve, OSS would gain more mindshare, etc.

The companies you listed are doing very good things. Competition would be great, but the day when they are quoted below $1 will be a victory for no one.

Much of the inventive to create an easy to use Linux distribution has been to get people to switch. If there was no proprietary software, the people that make OSS would again focus on making software targeted at people like themselves, and it would not be easy to use.

I use Mac OS X for the excellent interface and prevalence of great software. OSS does not provide as much.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think Gates' money is in a bank somewhere? A huge portion of it is in Microsoft stock. If it starts (continues?) failing the stock price goes with it. There's no "interest" to sustain it with. And Wall Street doesn't care much for companies that can't sustain themselves. If Gates has to prop it up it's game over.

Time is running out for SCO

[Animats]

Time is running out for SCO. Check the scheduling order. We're past the stalling of pretrial discovery. We're past wondering if SCO has some surprise evidence. Discovery is over. Now things speed up. Expert reports are coming in now and end on September 22. On September 25, summary judgement motions start, and undoubtedly IBM will make some. Things can only get worse for SCO in the summary judgement phase, where some or all of SCO's case may be thrown out and IBM might win on some of their counterclaims. This whole thing could end in September.

If not, trial starts in February 2007.

Cohen talks bullshit

[DrSkwid]

> according to OSDL CEO Stuart Cohen, shows that 'Linux and open source software are bigger than any one company. Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace.'

utter crap, it shows that SCO had a terrible case and that the markets are about making money not deciding on merits of legal arguments.

Linux didn't win ANYTHING.

Re:Cohen talks bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace."

Yeah, and Linux starts to sound like any companies' PR bullshit. What I need is "Linux is the best OS for my computer"! I couldn't care less about corporate crap such as lawsuits and marketshare...

I know that "Linux is the best OS for my computer" doesn't sound as fancy. But hey, *that* is what I need, so which user cares about marketshare ?

Re:Cohen talks bullshit

[kfg]

know that "Linux is the best OS for my computer" doesn't sound as fancy. But hey, *that* is what I need, so which user cares about marketshare ?

This isn't about marketshare. The lawsuit is about one the things that makes Linux the best OS for your computer; it is resilient to attacks trying to take it away from you. SCO's declining stock value is due to public perception that SCO bet the farm on breaking that resilience; and lost.

KFG

Re:Cohen talks bullshit

[DrSkwid]

The attack wasn't even coherent. Nothing is proven.

There are already OSes that have withstood far more vigorous attackthan this one, they are the BSD family. The attack even precipitated Linux adoption !

Re:Cohen talks bullshit

[kfg]

The attack wasn't even coherent.

I know. I've read their press releases.

KFG

Re:Cohen talks bullshit

[dbIII]

Linux didn't win ANYTHING.

Neither did SCO as a company - but Darl McBride and his brother who is pulling in HUGE fees on the legal team are doing very well financially out of this. SCO will be sucked dry and Darl will move on to his next victim - with the reputation of being a "hard hitter" that would have won if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their penguin. Expect to see him in the news again later on - and hopefully some jail time if people are paying more attention in a later scam.

Re:Cohen talks bullshit

[El Torico]

He's going to be Carly Fiorina's running mate.

Downward spiral?

[Anonymous Coward]

"2 cents less than where it was before the lawsuit"

2 cents is considered a downward spiral? Now I understand why some think Linux has a chance :|

Re:Downward spiral?

[RobertLTux]

no the drop from $4.00 on june 30 to the current $2.22 is called a downward spiral and just a note for the peanut gallery the IBM strategy is to not only shoot TSCOG but make it so CSI Lindon needs HAZMAT Suits to examine the crime scene. the message writ large is "DO NOT TRY THIS ON PLANET EARTH WE ARE PROFESSIONALS"

and whats worse is some of the papers seem to be passing from IBM to Novell (and Vice Versa)

Re:Downward spiral?

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, that would be the downward spiral after the unmentioned upward spiral then?

Can stock prices go negative?

[ettlz]

And if not, can they make an exception for SCO?

Re:Can stock prices go negative?

[ZorbaTHut]

In theory, the realistic minimum price for a stock is the point at which the stock is worth precisely the company's assets. A company with a net value of 20 million, with 1 million outstanding shares, would therefore have an absolute minimum price of $20/share. (This isn't actually true, but if your stockholders believe your company is worth less than its asset price, perhaps it really is time to just break the company up for scrap.)

I suppose, if a company's assets were negative - if the company was in major debt - and there was some way to force the shareholders of the company to pay the owed money, then yes, indeed, the stock could and likely would go negative.

Possibly unfortunately, though, there's no way that can happen - although I personally would be vastly amused if all the SCO stockholders were forced to pay IBM for owning part of such a doomed company, I suppose it would open up an incredible number of legal problems :)

Re:Can stock prices go negative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people have bought two dollars for a dollar. This is relatively normal when people buy up large firms with a lot of problems. Few people is intressted to have a go at their problems and they don`t want to clean up the mess before split up either.

Re:Can stock prices go negative?

[fm6]

You're assuming that stock prices are based on asset valuation. That's nonsense. Asset valuation is just one tool for pricing a stock. Ultimately, the price of a stock represents investors beliefs about the company's ability to grow shareholder value. So a company can have negative assets and still have a good stock price, provided only that investors think that this situation is bound to change. That happened a lot during the dotcom bubble.

Contrariwise, a company can have a lot of valuable assets but a low stock price if investors think the company isn't using those assets effectively. That usually ends with the company being forced to sell off some (or, as in the case of Knight-Ridder, all) of its assets.

If you remember that stock prices are based on your ability to resell them, you realize that a negative price is an absurdity. That would mean that you'd be willing to pay somebody to take over your stock. Stock always has some value, if only as wallpaper.

VA linux

[Anonymous Coward]

VA linux's share price is even more crap. rejoice slashdot!

Heres something to help SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

"Looking for extra income? Need a recurring revenue stream to support your organization? Then the Me Inc. Sales Agent Program is for you."

Available on SCOs EdgeClickPark website
http://www.edgeclickpark.com/solutions/SalesAgentP rogram.html

Like they say, "The sooner you get started, the more lucrative this program is."

Re:Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER

[Anonymous Coward]

Well here i was thinking i'd support Linux (a tiny little bit) by buying a set of CDs. Silly me.

Clearly

[Chuck Chunder]

and the executive stock dumping began shortly thereafter, what do you make of this situation?

SCO executives are such nice people that they decided to share the wealth that would undoubtably follow from their brilliant lawsuit idea with lucky investors?

The last bit is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace.

Linux has not won in the courts. IBM is doing well against SCO - but it isn't over till it's over, and the lawsuit could go on for another year, at least. Trial is currently scheduled for 2007.

Linux is not winning in the marketplace. Microsoft is winning in the marketplace, it has about 10 times as big a market share as Linux, last time I looked.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm a big Linux fan, and I'm posting this from my Debian Etch system, which is connected to the Internet thru my Debian Sarge firewall. But you don't win by deluding yourself that the enemy has lost, when in fact it is very far from losing.

Analyst's comment missing

[Laura_DilDio]

Where's the Yankee Group? Where's the fathead Laura DiDio? She's been the official SCO Fan-girl from the start. I guess monkey-boy Ballmer didn't command her to make any comments at this time.

Is this overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, why not reply with the reason why you think it's overrated?

Re:Is this overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's overrated because the moderator modded it down because he disagrees, but knew he'd get slapped in meta-mod if he used one of the negative tags. The good news is that using overrated or underrated incurs a karma penalty. Posting AC to avoid being modded offtopic by some self-righteous twit.

Re:Is this overrated?

[Sj0]

I dunno, I use overrated sometimes for comments that are just tripe, but not for any of the reasons mentioned in moderation. I'll do it sometimes when I see posts that are factually incorrect, for example.

Purchase == liability

[gvc]

If somebody were to purchase the company, they'd acquire its liabilities, too. Pending lawsuits with Novell, IBM, RedHat, AutoZone, as well as many more potential ones. These claims and counterclaims don't just "go away" if the company changes hands.

Liquidation is the only solution.

Re:Purchase == liability

[G Morgan]

Can IBM potentially buy their IP off them in order to give SCO enough cash to pay off what they owe IBM as a result of the court case or is this a bit of an oversimplifaction.

Re:Purchase == liability

[mabhatter654]

IBM doesn't want the Unix IP because of Anti trust concerns. That was the whole point of the Open group keeping SCO around. If the actual Unix vendors that also ship the big iron Unix servers owned the OS itself, they'd be getting sued by the FTC left and right for the high Unix prices. But with a third party in charge of the IP, "nobody" important owns the OS, so prices for Unix and big iron can't be targeted for anti-trust lawsuits. I think with Linux in the mix now, it could be OK for a "big iron" unix vendor to get the license, but somebody would surely cry foul. After all, if IBM bought them out, then Sun, HP, SGI, etc would all "owe" money to IBM which would be a big problem to the regulators. The way the law works right now somebody has to "own" the rights.. that's why they call it IP... they want it treated like property (land or autos, etc), not legally like a "treat" (beer, chocolate, etc.. that you use it and it goes away)

Re:Purchase == liability

[G Morgan]

They could buy it and just allow people to use it by licensing with a permissive OSS license though. It would also help IBM protect themselves from this sort of thing in future if they actually own the IP. It doesn't necessarily mean that IBM need to claim money over it.

Another Math-Impaired Reporter

[Dean Edmonds]

If the stock went from 2.30 to 20.50, that's a little under a ninefold increase, not ten.

Re:Another Math-Impaired Reporter

[Morky]

Ninefold, definitely ninefold. Wopner's at six. I'm an excellent driver.

IBM is winning

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Don't forget that's IBM that is winning, linux is hitching a ride here.

If this was happening to a smaller company, maybe it wouldn't have the funds to defend itself and would be gone bankrupt by now.

The threat is still strong.

I would have tagged it "haha"...

[w4rl5ck]

if it had not already been.

So there's justice even in the worldwide financial market.

SCO could have done well.

[Morky]

SCO was a strong company back when they had the only commercial UNIX on Intel. They had a big presence in small companies, support from hardware vendors, and good customer service. If they would have just embraced Linux instead of seeing it as a threat, they could have been the major player in Linux for business. They just had really bad, shortsighted leadership.

Re:SCO could have done well.

[KokorHekkus]

SCO was a strong company back when they had the only commercial UNIX on Intel. They had a big presence in small companies, support from hardware vendors, and good customer service. If they would have just embraced Linux instead of seeing it as a threat, they could have been the major player in Linux for business. They just had really bad, shortsighted leadership.

Except that The SCO Group (SCOX) isn't that company. It's the company that used to be know as Caldera who bought the UNIX business from OldSCO. From what I've gathered they wanted to use the huge amounts of VARs that used SCO UNIX and push Caldera as the OS of choice instead. Apparently that didn't pan out as planned (maybe because many of the VARs were rather small and couldn't change course without significant costs).

Then comes plan B into play: who can we sue?

Re:SCO could have done well.

[Teancum]

Although you are largely correct that the "spirit" of the old SCO is long gone in the Caldera recration, it still is essentially the same legal entity, much as the current AT&T is still the old AT&T, reborn with another company through mergers and corporate renaming.

The interesting thing would be to see if the SCO trademark could be made available (bought out from Caldera on pennies for the dollar) for another rebirth as a major Linux distro. It would be very interesting to see if IBM would take up that flag or not, and do it the ultimate irony if they win the counter suit.

Re:SCO could have done well.

[TheOrquithVagrant]

That SCO is not this SCO, even though they've attempted to create that illusion with their name change. The "SCO" involved in this lawsuit is the company formerly known as Caldera - once, a major Linux distributor.

Re:SCO could have done well.

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe someone can buy up the Titanic trademark for their next ocean liner venture. I bet that would be a bargain, too.

Baseless

[Elektroschock]

It is no sign of strength to beat a company which casts baseless claims. The only thing which surprises me is that the stock market took it serious. It was very obvious to everyone that it was fraud from the very beginning. So perhaps the market is not that perfect as some make you believe.

The extraordinary amount of communication issued to the press during the anti-Linux SCO case should have alerted a real investor about the nature of these claims. Now, I wonder whether US criminal prosecutors will take the required measures against those SCO manager who are responsible.

Last Trade: 2.22 Aug 4

[Anonymous Coward]

Man this is a prime example of why you should not sue your customer base.
Win or lose they will still lose!

Who tagged this "haha"?

[roystgnr]

It's too late for that. The "dump" phase of this pump-and-dump scam may be over, but the crooks responsible have already made millions of dollars through SCOX stock sales. The investors losing money now aren't the executives responsible for a bunch of crooked lawsuits, they're the suckers who fell for the "our copyrights are being violated!" talk.

Unless there's an SEC investigation, it doesn't matter that some corporate entity called The SCO Group will go down in flames - the people who caused it all made out like bandits.

Re:Who tagged this "haha"?

[sedyn]

While I agree with everything you said, I give no pity to the "suckers" of which you speak.

If the situation was reversed, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Who tagged this "haha"?

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

The "investors" deserved what they got. They took a gamble hoping an immoral and (it turns out) illegal attempt to hijack Linux would pay off. They lost.

Re:Who tagged this "haha"?

[Teancum]

This is almost as if you think the law is whatever you can sucker a judge into thinking it should be.

What a wonderful concept.

Anybody with half a brain should have evaluated the basis of the lawsuit, and in this case asked both some hardcore IP lawyers and a few Linux gurus about the merits of this before doing some serious investment toward SCO.

Of course that is why this is one of the most heavily shorted stocks on the market at the moment, and why the stock shows any life at all: Everybody who shorted it at $20/share is now covering their short and having to buy the stock back. As soon as all those shorts are covered, it will fall to $0.25/share. Especially when the SEC gets involved.

You hold em ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of team meetings when we had a certain boss. The man was so vile, we'd argue in the back over who would hold him and who would hit him.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[KokorHekkus]

A smaller company sues a larger one. The larger company spends so much on lawyers that it drains the resources of the smaller company, crippling the company until they can't fight any more

Except that in THIS case it's the smaller company that's been dragging it's feet at EVERY step of the way. So IBM hasn't done "something like this".

Tubes

[Anonymous Coward]

"I just hope they don't go completely down the tubes before IBM's lawyers eat them alive."
Yeah, they might clog them.

That's nothing - look at GTW to see real scam

[walterbyrd]

If you want to see real insider selling in a total tech scam look at GTW. On Friday GTW tanked 12% on > 2X normal volume to hit it's all time low.

CEO, and long time scam artist, Lap Shun Hui has been dumping his free shares by the millions, and not properly reporting his sales. Apparently the guy is above the law.

There has been very little insider selling involved in the scox-scam.

Re:That's nothing - look at GTW to see real scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you stop libelling some unknown here, make your own post about this fella, or call the SEC and have them deal with it?
Do you think it is OK to take a forum on SCO and change it to your own grip? It is not.

And SCOX had only 1/2 as many shares then

[walterbyrd]

Actually scox hit an intraday low of $0.56 on the day darl mcbride took over. Back then scox had about 10MM shares, today scox has about 20MM shares.

Even with scox at three year lows, the market-cap is up from about $6MM to over $40MM.

Better idea: IBM sues MSFT

[walterbyrd]

The entire scam was funded, and possibly orchestred, by msft. It was part of msft's ongoing Linux FUD campaign. And it is was more than a lawsuit and stock scam.

Lanham act violation - Scox knowing made verifiably untrue statements to the mass media. For example, scox has many times claimed to own the Unix operating system.

RICO - Scox has claimed that anybody using Linux has to pay scox, or scox will sue them. This is extortion, racketeering, and barratry. Scox even mailed out 1500 threatening letters.

Aside from funnelling money to scox, msft has clearly paid their shills - like Enderle - to promote the scam.

Msft, already convicted for abusive business practices, can not deny their involvement in this scam. If the sunw lawsuit was worth $2B, the IBM lawsuit should be worth $5B.

Re:Better idea: IBM sues MSFT

[benna]

Have you any evidence to support this statement about Microsoft? No? I am shocked.

Re:Better idea: IBM sues MSFT

[walterbyrd]

I have plenty of evidence. After getting caught, msft admitted their involvement. Look for the "Halloween document."

Buying scox == buying lawsuits against you

[walterbyrd]

Scox is not just suing, scox is being sued. Buy IBM, RedHat, and Novell, and maybe others. Others may join in later. Class action lawsuits are not out of the question.

These lawsuits are no problem for scox, because scox plans on going bankrupt. But, if IBM bought scox, IBM would inheret all the lawsuits.

Why do you think msft decided to sue by proxie?

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[kirun]

Yes, it would be such an injustice if SCO were actually forced to prove their case. If SCO's only way of winning is by making sure IBM doesn't have enough time to discover the legitimate source of whatever SCO picks out of a hat, then they don't have a case, and should lose. If there is no legitimate source for the code in question, IBM can't magic one up. The only reason for SCO to stall giving evidence is that they don't have any, gambled on their bluff paying off, and lost. It's a rather twisted idea of a fair trial to insist that just because somebody has less resources, they should be allowed to get away with not having their evidence examined properly.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[KokorHekkus]

SCO have been dragging their feet because they've been forced too.

Except that the courts aren't quite as Perry Masonesque as you seem to think they are. IBM would have gotten about the same time to ponder the allegations if the case had proceded according to schedule instead of being postponed ad nausem. So that argument doesn't hold much water. Actually, by delaying SCOX has give IBM even MORE time to get its ducks in a row.

And a lot of SCOX claims have already been thrown out because of lacking specificity. Seems their "trump card" coming along to well. To quote Judge Wells:

"Does SCO have, can they provide, additional specificity?... I mean, basically, is this all you've got?"

And this was after SCOX had submitted their experts report on the infringement.

Hoo-boy!

[KwKSilver]

Thanks for the tip, Darl.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[Just Some Guy]

You mean, like how we all cheered for EOLAS enforcing their stupid patent against Microsoft? Oh, wait - most of us didn't do that.

SCO, stop hitting yourself

[DannyO152]

You really haven't been paying attention, now have you? It's okay, there are lots of other facets to our world and this too will pass.

A trial date has been set for years. It was originally going to be this Fall, but SCO (IIRC) asked for it to be advanced. They've since suggested they needed another delay, but they were reminded that when the schedule was changed it was not going to be changed again.

Prior art is a patent defense but patents are not part of this litigation -- patent infringements were in IBM's counter-claims, but IBM subsequently dropped them in order to to simplify the case. Even were patents still part of the case, the respondent (SCOG at one time) is allowed to find out the details of the patents and to ask where and how they are allegedly infringing in order to provide a defense, which may include prior art, that the method patented is not the method used by the respondent, and/or that the patent is vague or obvious.

The discovery phase (and the time for basic discovery has passed) is exactly when you ask for the evidence that the other party will use at trial. Making interrogatories and deposing witnesses during the scheduled time is neither asking for evidence up front nor delaying the trial.

The Govt. Legal Team

[Morosoph]

...were taken off the Microsoft case when the Government changed hands; I wouldn't be surprised if they just left things the way that they are. Non-action rather than agressive support of Microsoft's allies would be entirely consistent.

Also, only geeks really care about this case, and by and large, they'll be satisfied with a court victory against SCO. Why commit more government funds?

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[pyrrhonist]

You can argue that SCO are stalling, you could also argue that IBM are holding up the trial by demanding evidence up front.

LOL. That's what you're supposed to do. It's called discovery. You can't file a claim against someone without showing them the evidence you have against them regarding that claim. This enables them to mount a defense. Both SCO and IBM have asked for evidence as part of the discovery process.

On December 12, 2003, SCO was ordered by Judge Wells, "...to identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM". SCO claimed that they couldn't do this without access to IBM's code, and requested the entire source base to both AIX and Dynix including all versions and changes. SCO's motion was granted by Judge wells.

On March 18, 2005, IBM delivered to SCO everything they had requested. The 80 GB of code and a server machine to put it on was was delivered on time. SCO, then claimed that this information wasn't enough.

SCO has been objecting in one way or another to a judge's order for almost three years.

Who is holding up the trial again?

Focus

[KwKSilver]

I just think it shifts the focus away from the merits of Free Software, and towards

Towards the MSs, Oracles, etc. Part of what got me interested in linux & FreeBSD was the sneering condescencion of MSs sock-puppets like ZD & CNET. They seemed to suggest that their readership was simply too stupid to use any form of unix. Eventually, I stumbled across a copy of Mandrake 8.2 (at Wal-Mart!) which showed me that I had been lied to. And that's why I no longer have bookmarks for ZD or CNET.

I like the remark attributed to Linus Torvald, to the effect that if MS was destroyed by Linux, it would be collateral damage, not a goal. Works for me, as I really don't care what happens to MS, as long as I don't have to use their stuff.

TechNewsWorld is utter Garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

It's part of the Gartner FUD machine spun off into groups like Yankee, Giga and Forrester for deniability. The rag is like LinuxToday and a horde of others. They don't even hide the fact that they're trying to pass themselves off as a dozen different tech journals, when in fact it is just one. TFA reports as news something that's been obvious for a long time.

All this article is lacking from their standard fare is quotes from veteran trolls the Didiot and Rob Enderle.

Why anyone would believe the analysis of any company that markets its ability to "opinion make" is beyond me.

Shame on you Zonk for not linking to the original article: http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_4123794/

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[Sj0]

You're missing an important point here: It's not IBM prolonging the lawsuit, but SCO. They are the ones extending this lawsuit time and time again, thus they are the ones responsible for increasing the legal fees they're spending.

Besides, you're a troll for completely disregarding the morality issues here. If Microsoft was suing Rambus for their shenanigans, or even better, fighting back against a frivilous claim being made, you can bet Slashdotters would be backing Microsoft. A few slashdotters are pie in the sky idealists, but most are pragmatists, and thus can come to decisions based on the situation at hand, rather than a few cliches.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[Sj0]

Disregard my other comment. You're obviously a paid astroturfer. Good day.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[abigsmurf]

1: that was a patent issue, not a copyright one 2: people were against EOLAS not because it would effect microsoft but because it'd effect every browser

They did that.

[twitter]

they could have been the major player in Linux for business. They just had really bad, shortsighted leadership.

Their leaders are in Redmond, but don't worry they are on the same ride. The SCO you are talking about did hitch onto free software. M$ crushed them, just like they did Corel.

They won't be able to do that much longer. The performance and cost difference between free and non free software is so extreme that the money is moving. Those that don't move will dry up and die. $6,200,000,000 in advertising won't change reality.

Re:They did that.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh willy, this is just absolutely hilarious. Next time try RTFA, OK? Bwahahahahahah!!!

Re:They did that.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88413&cid=7656 803
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77588&cid=6896 690
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73226&cid=6595 921
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71864&cid=6492 229
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69025&cid=6312 196
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49657&cid=5011 656
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180946&thresho ld=1&cid=14972959
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129735&thresho ld=5&cid=10823036
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112229&cid=952 1025&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137420&cid=114 89094&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155076&cid=130 11391&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113493&thresho ld=5&cid=9614809
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164775&cid=137 51004
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126301&thresho ld=5&cid=10572437
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119108&thresho ld=5&cid=10056927
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135403&cid=112 99129&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136181&thresho ld=5&cid=11374447
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134005&thresho ld=5&cid=11203454
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159878&thresho ld=0&cid=13384602
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166661&cid=138 99128&threshold=2
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168164&cid=140 19967
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168163&cid=140 20030&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172399&thresho ld=1&cid=14355804

Re:On the other news...makers of Phantom Game Cons

[G Morgan]

In futher news. They extend their legal bid to cover the HURD and Duke Nukem Forever. "We were the original creators of vapourware and DNF and the HURD are stealling food off our plate. We are taking the defense of our patent on non existent code very seriously and expect anyone who doesn't use DNF and HURD code to pay us licensing fees".

RMS of the FSF replied by claiming that non existent code must be free for all people to not use, modify and redistribute without restriction.

Duke Nukem was unavailable for commentary at the time but inside sources claim he's all out of gum.

Re:Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER

[kimvette]

Am I a sucker because I buy distributions I use on a daily basis to help ensure that the distributions continue to exist?

Re:Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER

[amonlee]

definitely not

Re:Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER

[rf0]

Whilst it would be nice not to worry about money everyone who works on Linux does need money to live off. CD,T-shirts are all ways of helping support the people who give you the freedom of choice. Its not a large price to pay is it?

what a shame

[mashmorgan]

I feel real sorry for the engineers, general staff et all who have been working hard to make their comapany Caldera/SCO a success. I've been watching this litigation with interest because I doubt very very much SCO would have got past the first hurdle in the UK legal system, ie disclosure.

Its a shame that a few board members with their own agenda can mess up the talent of these people and stain them as well.

The only good that could come out of it is that SCO goes banckrupt and redhat/novell/foss/osdl/slashdot-investors/ pick up the crew and the assets so as someone said before GNU is unix !!! ;-))) hey guys lets look at some ancient code

Its also interesting the way everyone want's the SEC to do something, like the FRA in the UK. They will not act unless there's somethign "big" and big means more that 10 mill for starters. After all the Maxwell saga in the UK lost 1 Billion UK pounds raided from a pension fund right under their noses and no one got convicted. Yep its truly is cowboy land in Her Majestys land also.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one...

[teflaime]

if microsoft had done something like this, people would be screaming bloody murder.

Yes, if Microsoft had refused to provide evidence required at discovery, refused to provide any evidence at all, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. On the other hand, only the most ardent Microsoft haters would scream if Microsoft had insisted on seeing the evidence against them, insisted on the rules of discovery, insisted that the company suing them prove that they had a case.