Not if they try to sell the stuff. Trying to sell even a fraction of their 740,740 shares will drive the price into the ground. Of course, if they keep it, the price will go into the ground anyway. I would estimate that they're out about 75% of their money on the stock if they try to sell it, or all of their money if they hang onto it for a while.
Of course, after that loss, there will be some former SCO lawyers available cheap. Maybe Baystar and RBC can hire them to sue Darl for their losses.
The Spiderman ads themselves might be almost invisible, but considering the fact that they even get press coverage on/. the ads seem to have achieved their desired effect in spades. The discussions I've heard on the radio sports channels say that, at least from the MLB (that's Major League Baseball for all the/.'ers who don't know) side, they're trying to get younger people and others who don't pay attention to baseball to hear about it.
Note that they don't actually have to fly the full 3-person crew.
3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km (62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2 inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons.
I believe the problem goes back a lot earlier than the 1998 court ruling. As I recall, sometime in the 1970's, there was a company that patented their accounting software and then proceded to attempt to sue anyone who used "double entry bookkeeping" in a computer program. The patent was thrown out as being obvious.
Sticking "on a computer" on the end of a well known buisness practice didn't work then, just as sticking "on the web" shouldn't work now.
So it WAS purely an attempt to manipulate the stock price? Doesn't the SEC police that type of activity?
(You don't mean that SCO lied when they gave that story of what a "bargain" the stock was, do you?)
Didn't Darl file for a buyback when the stock was at $10, saying that the company felt that the price was a bargain? By now, since the stock has slipped so much since then, shouldn't SCO be jumping at buying back all those shares at an "even better" bargain?
Or was the buyback filing and press release just another attempt to pump up the stock price through FUD? Does anyone else think that the buyback filing and subsequent press release was purely a stock-pumping ploy?
Over on Google News, the article they're leading on this news story is from The Inquirer, titled "Man goes ballistic, says Linux is a security threat"... "EE TIMES said a real time operating system (RTOS) firm has gone apeshit bananas about the very idea of using Linux in embedded systems because it poses a security threat..."
Slashdot Mirror
At least BayStar knows that the loss is covered.
Not if they try to sell the stuff. Trying to sell even a fraction of their 740,740 shares will drive the price into the ground. Of course, if they keep it, the price will go into the ground anyway. I would estimate that they're out about 75% of their money on the stock if they try to sell it, or all of their money if they hang onto it for a while.
Of course, after that loss, there will be some former SCO lawyers available cheap. Maybe Baystar and RBC can hire them to sue Darl for their losses.
80186 was not a failure. I just was not used in PC's.
Don't tell me that. My 1st PC was a TRS80 with a 186 processor.
The Spiderman ads themselves might be almost invisible, but considering the fact that they even get press coverage on /. the ads seem to have achieved their desired effect in spades. The discussions I've heard on the radio sports channels say that, at least from the MLB (that's Major League Baseball for all the /.'ers who don't know) side, they're trying to get younger people and others who don't pay attention to baseball to hear about it.
Do you think it's working?
Note that they don't actually have to fly the full 3-person crew.
3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km (62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2 inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons.
Zacks.com Announces That Mike Chrisman Highlights the Following Stocks: IPIX Corporation and SCO Group
I believe the problem goes back a lot earlier than the 1998 court ruling. As I recall, sometime in the 1970's, there was a company that patented their accounting software and then proceded to attempt to sue anyone who used "double entry bookkeeping" in a computer program. The patent was thrown out as being obvious.
Sticking "on a computer" on the end of a well known buisness practice didn't work then, just as sticking "on the web" shouldn't work now.
The first of four failed in 2002 and no replacement will be available until the shuttles run again.
The station requires the remaining two gyros for normal operation, but there are other backup measures available if another one fails.
Salt Lake Trib article
So it WAS purely an attempt to manipulate the stock price? Doesn't the SEC police that type of activity? (You don't mean that SCO lied when they gave that story of what a "bargain" the stock was, do you?)
Didn't Darl file for a buyback when the stock was at $10, saying that the company felt that the price was a bargain? By now, since the stock has slipped so much since then, shouldn't SCO be jumping at buying back all those shares at an "even better" bargain?
Or was the buyback filing and press release just another attempt to pump up the stock price through FUD? Does anyone else think that the buyback filing and subsequent press release was purely a stock-pumping ploy?
Add +5 Karma points to the Mars rovers
It did seem a bit odd to fold a 2.5 inch drive
into a 1cm cartridge.
Are there only four songs on the album?
No, only four good songs per album.
Over on Google News, the article they're leading on this news story is from The Inquirer, titled "Man goes ballistic, says Linux is a security threat" ... "EE TIMES said a real time operating system (RTOS) firm has gone apeshit bananas about the very idea of using Linux in embedded systems because it poses a security threat ..."
He should have to find all the unfavorable information on the net about him and his firm
without the use of search engines.
They used to spend a LOT of money on sco licenses, so they will have damages to show, even if the rest of their case is fragile.
A prior customer's decision not to buy their product any more can be treated as damages in a lawsuit? Not likely (IANAL)
I'd be moving my data off their systems today.
Doesn't look like anybody is going to be getting their data off those systems for a while.
Looks to me like they Slashdotted themselves.
At this rate, some day someone will make up some legit reason to sue the entire Internet altogether
Didn't Scientology already threaten to do that?
Al Gore didn't get anything?