Slashdot Mirror
Investors Bailing On SCO Stock, SCOX Plummets
HailDorothy writes "SCO's stock price is plummeting in the aftermath of Judge Kimball's ruling that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights, as we discussed earlier. '[W]e will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said in a public statement issued in a futile attempt to calm investors. SCO's stock price has fallen 70 percent during trading today, reaching a 52-week low. It looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program. As Judge Kimbell noted in his ruling, it's unlikely that Novell will ever be able to collect on those royalties."
*opens champagne*
Ah the sweet smell of victory!
Now bring on Microsoft!
Wait... um....
Damn... this ain't gonna be so easy.
Where's the Tylenol?
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If a naked Morgan Webb giving away free Wii systems, then we'll know our time has come.
" looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program."
Actually, the deal was that SCO remits 100% to Novell, then Novell pays them a 5% commission. Kimball ruled that SCO broke their fiduciary duty to Novell; SCO is no longer able to claim the 5% commission.
The only question left is how much of the Sun and Microsoft licenses were for Novell's stuff?
Fake Steve Jobs scooped it: he claims SCO has filed a new lawsuit--it's suing itself and its executives for incompetence in bringing about and losing the UNIX lawsuits. He's kidding, but I'll bet they thought about it a least for a minute or two ;-)
If I'm reading Google's finance page correctly, almost 6 million shares changed hands today.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=scox
Stock cannot sell if someone isn't buying. Who's buying?
Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.
I don't believe that there were than many people betting that it would go up again. Not with the approximately $9 million dollars it would take to have that stock last Friday.
Who's buying the stock and why are they buying it?
I can understand everyone wanting to sell it. I don't understand anyone buying almost 6 millions shares of it today.
Unless it's another scan by SCO to buy stock options from their executives. Trying to empty the company's coffers before Novell gets its cut or IBM beats them.
If my parents used retirement funds to invest in SCO I would cry inside. I raised them better than that.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
As of April 30, 2007, SCO had $19.847 million in total assets (which includes no intangibles), and $12.654 million in total liabilities, according to the Reuters data
The ruling on the Microsoft/Sun royalties owed to Novell adds roughly $25 million to the liabilities, making SCO worth roughly -18 million dollars, book value.
No, Sco basically said that they retain ownership on the parts they added to unixware( which don't affect IBM's code which predates that). It is relevant in its on going trial against Novell. part of the deal was that novell agreed to non compete with Sco as part of the deal. Sco's arguing that distributing linux ( that does have unix code in it, according to Sco ) unfairly violated the non-compete clause in their contract.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.
No, they won't tell, and they most likely never will unless they get in a SCO-like situation where their actual revenue stream is drying up fast and it's either sue-and-pray or just die quietly.
I believe this is the primary lesson MS learned from their SCO experiment: The implication of IP infringement is much more effective at scaring people away from Linux than actually trying to prove it. As long as the infringement is a non-specific threat with only a hint of reality behind it, it works on the basic fear-centers of the brains of IT management. As soon as it becomes something real, like a lawsuit, then it instead it invites the managers to use the analytic portions of their brains. FUD and fact checking don't go together.
The concept of FUD is really nothing new to Microsoft of course, but this was an actual test run of "can we scare more people away from Linux with an actual IP lawsuit instead of just claiming that it is unsafe?" and it turns out the answer is "no".
The enemies of Democracy are
You mean a scorpse? scorpsicle?
Infuriate left and right
The crime was apparently filing a lawsuit that didn't pan out.
Nope. The crime is fraud.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Sorry... I think you'll find the crimes and misdemeanors fall more under the following categories:
Libel
Slander
Stock Fraud
RICO
Breach of Contract
Based on the misery that is in store for them personally, Darl, Yarro and the lawyers all have to figure out how to save their hides. They might be able to do that if they can point to any evidence that points at Microsoft. That would direct IBM's attention away from them and IBM might be grateful. Otherwise, they will probably lose all the ill-gotten gains they have accumulated so far.
SCO shares are now cheaper than toilet paper and are softer and more absorbent. I plan to buy a couple hundred bucks worth just so I can finally put them to the use they so richly (no pun intended) deserve.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm just looking at this as a stock trading opportunity. Anything dropping like this just has to bounce!
See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX for a list of major holders.
Mostly, it looks like large investment institutions hold the bulk of SCO shares. Probably these are part of "total market" indexes and mutual funds. Since SCOX is still listed, they would still be a component of such funds.
The best I can tell, the insiders are mostly gone. The largest holder of SCO seems to be Glenn J Krevlin. There are some articles out there linking him to some other bad smelling companies; the phrase "smoke & mirrors" seems common. SCO sounds right up his ally.
Hot-St0ck in the c0mput3r Industry!! Current Profile The SCO group, Inc.'s (OTCBB: SCOX) Symbol: SCOX Current Price: $0.37 3 day Target: $0.70 2 week Target: $1.25 Watch this one trade starting Wednesday Morning and Especially all this week. A huge PR Campaign just started and the price is expected to rise quite nicely. Its only trading at .37 with big increases possible! Judge to
rule on possession of huge part of UnIX market!
* Act Fast and Early! *
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
> Anything dropping like this just has to bounce!
Looking to cash in on the 'ol dead cat bounce? Considering SCOX has always managed to bouce back over the $1 mark to avoid delisting I suspect you might be right. Not going to bet money on it though, this time even former cheerleaders like Daniel Lyons at Forbes say they are dead. Darl has a big ol fork sticking out of his forehead.
Yes they will file a desperate appeal with every court that might possibly have jurisdiction. No it isn't going to help them do anything other than drag this thing out to the end of the year, January at the best. Then it is over and the patent wars will move from saber rattling and into the shooting phase.
Democrat delenda est
Don't get me wrong, these guys deserve everything that they get for their cheesy actions in the last several years against Linux. However, now, looking at their demise, I can't stop thinking how did they get there, when they were once "the rebels" against "the establishment" back in the day.
I started my career as a technical support engineer for SCO Xenix in the late 80s, back in the time where Larry Michaels was there. They had the vision and an excellent code base. I had customers running up to 16 Wyse terminals on a 286 system under Xenix running COBOL applications, and even more could be achieved with SCO UNIX on the 386...
I know this is just a nostalgic thought and that the SCO I'm referring to has nothing to do with its current incarnation. I hope this can be used as a lesson for Canonical and other very successful ventures that can really become the next best thing: don't become arrogant and forget your values and where you came from. Companies change, but at the end of the day, it's all about the people and how you contribute to make your and our lives better.
They're still not done this was filed today:
Form 8-K for SCO GROUP INC
13-Aug-2007
Other Events
Item 8.01. Other Events.
The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO", or the "Company"), offered the following statement in response to the August 10, 2007 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball regarding the Company's longstanding dispute with Novell over ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights:
"We are clearly disappointed by the Court's adverse ruling regarding ownership of copyrights covering the UNIX operating system. Although the district judge ruled in Novell's favor on many important issues, the case has not yet been fully vetted by the legal system and we will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here.
We note that the court ruled that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development of all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare 7.1.4 and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. We also own the exclusive, worldwide license to use the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. Also, SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms was not challenged and remains intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small, and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace.
Moreover, the court did not dismiss our claims against Novell regarding the non-compete provisions of the 1995 Technology License Agreement relating to Novell's distribution of Linux to the extent implicated by the technology developed by SCO after 1995. Those issues remain to be litigated." Forward-Looking Statements:
The statements contained in this press release, including but not limited to statements regarding the Company's pending litigation and expectations concerning the Company's developing mobile business OpenServer and Mobile Server platforms and other statements that are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements and are made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. We wish to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, developments in the Company's litigation with Novell and IBM, continued competitive pressure on the Company's operating system products, which could impact the Company's results of operations, adverse developments in and increased or unforeseen legal costs related to the Company's litigation, the inability to devote sufficient resources to the development and marketing of the Company's products, including the Me Inc. mobile services and development platform, and the possibility that companies with whom the Company has formed partnerships will decide to terminate, or reduce the resources devoted to, their partnership with the Company. These and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated are discussed in more detail in the Company's periodic and current filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 and Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2007. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events or circumstances arising after such date.
Basically saying don't leave yet we do own stuff that has value see we can even name it
Anything dropping like this just has to bounce!
It may make a splash, but most people just flush it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Note that most of the things listed in this thread are not crimes as indicated. For instance, conversion is a tort and encompasses more than just theft. Theft is also known as larceny and is a crime. Libel and slander are both forms of defamation and are generally not criminal but rather just civil torts. Etc.