Slashdot Mirror
Nasdaq to Delist SCO Sep 27
symbolset writes "The Nasdaq Staff has decided to delist SCO at open of business on September 27, 2007 under their discretionary authority and as a result of SCO filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. SCO can get a hearing but "There can be no assurance that the panel will grant the Company's request for continued listing.""
Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)
I got dibs on sco.com!
So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?
I'm guessing that Slashdot contributed a lot in making the right thing happen concerning SCO. Slashdot got the message out to everyone, over and over again, helping deprive SCO of profit from confused executives.
I started investing my $20,000 student loan instead of using it to get my MBA. Well, I bought about $7000 worth SCOX stock back when it was worth a little more than a dollar. Well, now I am very worried about what is going to happen to my investment. It is bad enough that it has depreciated more than five times what I paid. And to those wondering... I didn't buy the SCOX stock because I thought The SCO Group would win against IBM. And I use Linux a lot. I bought the SCO stock because I thought their UnixWare and Open Server offerings were valuable enough that in time the market would weigh them instead of voting. I really hope Darl can turn this around pretty fast. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
Someone, maybe Novell, needs to ask the Bankruptcy Court to deny SCO's filing for Chapter 11 on the grounds that there's no way they can re-organize into a viable operation, and therefore they need to be liquidated. Then the creditors can auction off the honor of kicking Darl out on his ass.
You go to pinksheets.com, buy the amount of stock back you shorted for pennies on the dollar, then surrender it back to your broker.
From their Form 8-K filing:
Why yes, yes, this seems like a splendid time to start giving out raises.
I'm pretty ignorant of finance and law, but is there any reason whatsoever for the stockholders not to sue the board into destitution at this point?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
From this article
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html
Daniel Lyons has some choice quotes
"I reported what they said. Turns out I was getting played. They never produced a smoking gun."
and
"It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right."
Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.
...turn out the lights.
Oh, and grab me one of them Aeron chairs while you're at it.
Thanks!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
That's a typo. It's supposed to be "a leaving provider..."
What happens if I maintain a short position in a stock that is delisted and declares bankruptcy? says you have pure profit, basically.
I'm guessing you know about covering dividends, one-time special payments, and the like to the long holder. Short selling is fraught with danger, but boy can't it be handy?
The parent comment was moderated "Troll", and several people have made disparaging comments.
However, this is how I figure it, and I'm serious, not joking: Slashdot kept the SCO issues and Groklaw's analysis of them in front of the eyes of a lot of Slashdot readers who were executives or knew executives, and in the normal course of discussing computer issues, created a culture of understanding SCO as not trustworthy.
As poor as the editing of Slashdot is sometimes, I don't know any better way to get computer-related news. If you know of a better way, please mention it.
I'm not impressed. Anyone can say, "Oh. Er, oops." It's easy to couch it in terms that *sound* like you're really humble, like "I was really REALLY wrong." Big deal.
He makes it sound like it just so happened that the geeks were right and he was wrong. "Turns out those amateur sleuths were right." He refers to arguably one of the largest communities of people who do this for a living plus interested and competent hobbyists as though he were saying, "Oh, look! Those little kids turned out to be right after all."
He does not see *why* we saw that SCO had no leg to stand on. He does not realize how, next time, he can do better than the flip of a coin. He says, "... the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose," and doesn't realize the painstaking review and due diligence that went on there that would put wikipedia to shame.
He says:
Er, so SCO failed because Linux was too successful?
No, Mr. Lyons. SCO failed because SCO was wrong , and if they had won, they still would have been wrong except there would have been a miscarriage of justice. It's not because someone threw the dice wrong or that the "pack" known as Slashdot or Groklaw happened to have a good day. It's not because you've been getting too much email pointing out that you were misinformed, Mr. Lyons, or ignorant.
You don't fool me. Your basic thinking shows through in your words, even though those words sound nice on the surface. Kinda like the press releases of this other company I know that turned out to be wrong.
-----
(By the way, I expect Laura Didio and Enderle to write something like, "Well, darnit, looks like Novell owns the rights to Unix, not SCO. So we'll just wait for Novell to sue Linux for blatant copying of Unix source into Linux.")
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
The problem was less that he was wrong, and more that he just reported what SCO said without being skeptical or attempting to suss out how full of shit they were. And from day one, there were plenty of indications that SCO had nothing.
A reporter's job isn't to be a stenographer for whatever anyone wants to say. We have press releases for that.
Reporters are supposed to get stories, sort out the various facts, and if someone's feeding them bullshit, point that out. The tendency for reporters today to be "balanced" in reporting on an issue really just means that people with nothing to back up what they say are put on even footing with people who have facts to back up their claims.
Let's hope Lyons learned that he actually has to do some, you know, reporting, as part of his job.
8 divided by 2 is 4, 6 divided by 3 is 2 means 86 and 23 are related to 42! I've unlocked the secret to life, the universe and everything!
Big news expected.*This stock will implode!*
.20
Do not wait until it is too late!!!
LOOK AND WATCH SCOX THIS MONDAY
New news expected next week.
Expected 7 day price -$1.10
Last time they put out major news the stock ran like shit down a toddler's leg!
(SYMBOL: SCOX)
Price: $
Short Term Target: 300-500% Loss
*******PRESS RELEASE******
**SCOX****SCOX****SCOX**** =
A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar trip around the toilet bowl in just one trade if you trade out before you hit the water trap. SCOX should be one of the most exciting stocks to trade for Sept, if you like roller coasters that only go down! In this range the stock has potential to move in the nether direction in big concrete shoes!!!! This means you should be able to buy at the lows and sell even lower, if you can get the fuck out of the way of this oncoming train fast enough! Did we tell you you've been tied to the track!!!!!!!!!!
If the company is able to effectuate it's business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY IN THE MAKING. Uproariously funny and documented all over the web for everyone to see!!!!
GOOD LUCK AND TRADE OUT BEFORE YOU HIT THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY!
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.