If enough people short the stock and the short interest goes sky-high, that by itself will take the wind out of SCO's sails. At some point the herd effect kicks in, and nobody will buy at any price. After all, it's sheer insanity to buy a stock that everyone else is shorting, regardless of what you think of the company's future.
MANY people are looking to short SCO, but most are trying to figure out when the rest of the world realizes there will be no buyout.
If most of the potential buyers (Sun, IBM, etc.) started announcing that no buyout of SCO was under consideration, that might get the ball rolling. Although merger negotiations are always kept secret, a non-merger is under no such restriction, right?
I think if we can get the price under $9, they will be on the fast track to bankruptcy. Keep up the good work Slashdotters!
Up until 2 yrs. ago, the air travel industry measured efficiency in a variety of ways: cost per mile flown, cost per passenger, security budget as a percentage of gross revenue, you get the idea. After Sept. 11, the new measure of success is the number of airliners lost due to terrorism, with the ideal goal being zero.
No matter what it costs (even if the customer base is diminished), the hardening of avionics systems is going to be non-optional as soon as this weakness is exploited by the bad guys.
Consider the airlines lost revenue due to 9/11. Wouldn't it be cheaper to pursue the problem now, as opposed to waiting a while and being forced to pursue the problem anyway? The air travel industry will surely suffer if costs go up, but a loss of passenger confidence would be fatal.
The only real solution is to harden the avionics against RF interference. It is only a matter of time before terrorists use ground-based microwave transmitters with directional antennas to harass airliners on takeoff/landing.
The very fact that FAA and FCC panic over passenger electronics is clue #1 that we have a problem and it goes well beyond the average moron with a cell phone.
We have it and it works for our international travelers. iPass also has US domestic service, but the pricing is about $5/hr, which is a bit steep for anything other than occasional use. Unless you have a huge number of users, you probably need an iPass reseller, such as Worldhook. For those who need international dialup, there is no reason to be paying a monthly charge, because nobody offers flat-rate international service.
You are probably right about the challenge of getting all the content (legally) under one roof. Of course, nothing prevented the industry from getting this material onto store shelves originally. Now that we have a dirt-cheap method of distribution, it somehow becomes a problem. As you say, reasonable expiration of copyrights would lead to a public domain music distribution industry that would compete with RIAA.
"The catalog is so much bigger than they could ever support at a physical store"
I can get a 2.5TB disk array for about $12K, a kick-ass Linux file server with fiber channel for about $8K, and a bunch of touch-screen kiosks with CD burners for about $6K each. Set up the kiosks, using what might be called "LAN Napster" (LANster?) to pull files on demand from the server in the back room. You pick your files, they download pretty much instantly, scan the old credit card and hit "burn".
Add some soft couches, a "listen with headphones" mode, a coffee bar, and Voila! profitability returned to the music industry. Of course, they would have to be willing to sell one song at a time, and it would have to be reasonably priced, since P2P is the competition. The buying experience would have to be convenient and fun, no waiting, DRM, or other nonsense. In theory, P2P activity would drop to a nuisance level. After all, everyone knows it can be slow, you don't always get what you want, and the whole process takes time. Take way the thrill of rejecting $18.99 pricing, crippled CDs, crappy albums, and inadequate choices, and P2P loses much of its appeal.
All they have to do is abandon a dying sales model and their unsustainable pricing. The solution is so simple, and yet the RIAA could mess up a one-car funeral.
Maybe the swappers have as much material as they want. The current offerings at the store are so pitiful that they aren't worth downloading, much less buying.
If I worked for RIAA, I would use P2P activity as a leading indicator of future sales. Reduced P2P activity means the current products are not very popular. When will they learn?
"...some companies will only do large salary adjustments if you have an offer from somewhere else for them to match/beat."
Even though counteroffers are fairly common, most employers feel as if they are getting "robbed" by someone who is exploiting the situation. Their logic is a bit warped, but the perception becomes reality. Future raises will be low end of low, and promotions will go to someone else. After all, "We are paying John Smith too much already. We have others that deserve something as well."
Employers have a limitless supply of excuses to avoid large salary adjustments. They will attempt to validate the status quo, often making irrelevent "internal equity" comparisons that ignore the problem that caused the discussion in the first place. Incredibly, the money that is "not in the budget" to retain existing employees is somehow available to hire a less experienced replacement from the outside.
The best strategy is to pursue other opportunities. Get a better offer, accept the offer, and quit. Otherwise, you may force the current employer to cough up a few dollars, but the problem will be back sooner than you think. Besides, who wants to work in an environment driven by last-ditch counteroffers?
Not to be overused, of course, but consider the advantages:
1. You have the ability to launch a project in the absence of a complete specification. If your customer is truly unable to describe what they want (until they see a Q&D system that gets part of the job done), then what is to be gained by dragging out the specifications process until any potential benefits have been lost? At the end of the day, the PHBs get the impression that "Our IT people couldn't get it done."
2: You have the built-in escape from a failed project. "This is just a prototype system that will help us build the specifications for a REAL system later... Let's deploy this little toy and learn from the experience." Of course, there is a very real chance that the "prototype" goes into real production. But if the project sucks, then it's super-easy to activate spin-control and launch the formal design of the "real" project. What is the escape route when you are $150K into the design/planning process and you suddenly realize that the goals are unattainable?
3. Consider the world of rapidly changing requirements, where the target moves faster than the geeks can write code. When does the traditional process catch up with the latest requirements? NEVER
4. Although documentation suffers, this is not always a bad thing. It certainly creates a dependency on the people who delivered the project, especially after a few of these little "science projects" are performing mission-critical tasks. Ask some of the currently unemployed geeks how their formal project plans and documentation made their employers feel safe in cutting the IT dept.
5. We have competitive issues arising from offshore outsourcers, and H1B labor. If there is one method that these people are in no position to emulate, it is the "Q&D, design while build" technique. The time zone and language barriers are both show-stoppers for Q&D projects.
Maybe the PHBs would stop looking to squeeze every IT dollar if we simply delivered useful projects a bit cheaper and alot quicker, even if the quality is not precisely as we might like. Hell, it sure works for Microsoft!
The Q&D method is inappropriate for large projects or inexperienced staff. There are skills for "guerilla tactics" that not all developers or managers have. Not every problem should be handled with Q&D methods, but there is a time and place for this kind of thing.
Which is the more satisfying job: leading a small group of IT commandos and attacking relatively small targets, or leading an army of morons in a war of attrition, armed with a 3-inch thick plan that is riddled with inconsistencies?
Years ago, I remember insisting on a formal approach and getting mostly criticism in return. Now I am flexible. Experience has shown me that I have to put aside professional pride when the immediate interests of my customer are better served by a band-aid approach. It's all very simple: If we take care of our customers, then we create positive karma, and some of that comes back to us. If we miss an opportunity to take care of a customer, then the competition takes care of them for us. Nobody was ever promoted because they held back a project until the specs and docs were complete. The risk of a missed opportunity is sky-high, whereas the risk of a half-assed project is often manageable, especially if the cost is kept low.
If I receive all this e-mail and the sender(s) own it, then their property is occupying space on my hard drive. I own that space, therefore I am entitled to charge rent, as documented in my SMTP banner. Don't like my rates ($50 processing fee + $5 per byte per month)? Don't use my space. Legally binding proof that the sender owns the e-mail is most of what I would need to initiate collection actions against all of my favorite spammers. I don't see how this logic is any shakier than the standard EULA.
"No ? Really ? Messrs Microsoft, you should at least find someone who doesn't work for you to praise your products."
The last time they tried that, it was the Valerie Mallinson "Switch" campaign. Oops! She worked for M$ (indirectly) also. At least now they admit it when the kudos come from their own people.
Granted, the people who invented the concept of civil disobedience used "arrest me" tactics. At the time, the arrests were part of the strategy, as there was no other way to get the necessary publicity. One of the key concepts is that massive civil disobedience can overwhelm the enforcement process that an individual may be subjected to. Consider your "laptops at the courthouse" example. If 2 million people show up at the courthouse with their laptops, you can rest assured that a very low percentage will be arrested.
Quiet downloading is not civil disobedience in the classic sense of the word, however the quiet-but-measurable presence of millions of people accomplishes very much the same thing. This is how to get 2 million people involved without having to figure out how to keep the batteries charged. The basic concept, "They can't possibly arrest all of us", is part of what makes civil disobedience work.
"Open" civil disobedience can be used to draw attention to the enforcement mechanism, whereas "quiet" civil disobedience can draw attention to the "inevitable reality" of normal behavior. Nobody ever said it had to be easy for the enforcers to arrest the protesters.
For the record, I think wide-open P2P is abusive to the rights of the copyright holders -- but the rights of consumers have been abused just as much. Congress has become to the Internet what France is to the UN -- those annoying people who tell us what to do but are unable to impose their will on the unwilling.
I would be shocked if Microsoft didn't have a large groups of people studying Linux; they may very well have their own internal distro. Considering that M$ needs all the security help it can get, NSA would be a good base for such a thing.
The real goal of M$ Linux would be to take concepts that work and port them back to Windows, so as to reinforce the monopoly in the places where it is crumbling. They might try to use marketing magic to bring some of the NSA credibility to Windows, although they are a long way from having a product that would remain secure long enough to make the effort worthwhile.
Microsoft is a mature IT company. They have to hold onto Windows because any other technology will cannibalize their revenue stream faster than new customers can replenish it. They face a dilemma in that competitors are free to bring their Linux submarines to periscope depth and launch torpedoes at the M$ battleship.
There may be a point in the future when some other technology undercuts or outperforms Linux and the Red Hats of the world have grown to a size where they can't adopt the new stuff without killing their existing base.
As we all know, Orin, Fritz, and the usual suspects are interested in letting the copyright industry attack those who are accused of copyright violations.
If they pass such a law, can we all go black hat on SCO based on their alleged GPL violations?
From the article: "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"
In a recent survey, 10 out of 10 consumers attempt to avoid substandard dental care.
The problem is that a SCO buyout rewards Canopy group, thus encouraging Canopy (and others) to try stunts like this. These bottom-feeders will be back with a new lawsuit every day of the week if this tactic turns a profit.
In the end game: suit or no suit, settlement or no settlement, SCO has little to sell and nobody to sell it to. If IBM takes a hardline attitude (and they win), SCO will be unable to deploy their executive golden parachutes. If McBride & associates actually want to continue their careers, then it becomes interesting.
These folks won't accept anything short of selling mediocre albums for $18.99.
In other news, SCO has just signed up Linkin Park, Radiohead, Madonna, Jewel and Green Day as the sole content providers for their new "Buy our albums or we'll sue" online music service.
Now that makes sense. He certainly meets the "negative karma" requirement, and he will be looking for work soon enough. If he can bring the same level of success to RIAA, that would be real justice for a change.
Your reply is pretty much in the spirit of what I had in mind. Having read your post, I envision a moderated blog where the SCO claims and other high-level issues are the topics. The visitors post their contributions, subject to a fascist editor who tries to keep the signal-to-noise ratio within reason.
There are many better people who can do a better job of this than I can, but if nothing appears within a week or so, I may very well take a shot at it.
All of these facts about "Ancient Unix", predictions of SCO shenanigans, the wayback machine, etc. are obviously of some interest to IBM. Aside from commenting in Slashdot (and hoping that IBM is reading), is there a better way to share this useful research? I have nothing to offer besides a general disdain for SCO (as if there was a shortage of that), but others seem to be digging up some fine dirt.
The OSS people have collaborative efforts on so many development projects, I think this is an opportunity to "turn the aircraft carrier into the wind" and focus the OSS "mental firepower" to sink SCO. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine myself agreeing with IBM (on anything), but here we are. Yes, I actually want a Fortune 500 company to have its way with a [former] Linux distributor. It must be snowing in Hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! My sig is working!
If enough people short the stock and the short interest goes sky-high, that by itself will take the wind out of SCO's sails. At some point the herd effect kicks in, and nobody will buy at any price. After all, it's sheer insanity to buy a stock that everyone else is shorting, regardless of what you think of the company's future.
MANY people are looking to short SCO, but most are trying to figure out when the rest of the world realizes there will be no buyout.
If most of the potential buyers (Sun, IBM, etc.) started announcing that no buyout of SCO was under consideration, that might get the ball rolling. Although merger negotiations are always kept secret, a non-merger is under no such restriction, right?
I think if we can get the price under $9, they will be on the fast track to bankruptcy. Keep up the good work Slashdotters!
Up until 2 yrs. ago, the air travel industry measured efficiency in a variety of ways: cost per mile flown, cost per passenger, security budget as a percentage of gross revenue, you get the idea. After Sept. 11, the new measure of success is the number of airliners lost due to terrorism, with the ideal goal being zero.
No matter what it costs (even if the customer base is diminished), the hardening of avionics systems is going to be non-optional as soon as this weakness is exploited by the bad guys.
Consider the airlines lost revenue due to 9/11. Wouldn't it be cheaper to pursue the problem now, as opposed to waiting a while and being forced to pursue the problem anyway? The air travel industry will surely suffer if costs go up, but a loss of passenger confidence would be fatal.
The only real solution is to harden the avionics against RF interference. It is only a matter of time before terrorists use ground-based microwave transmitters with directional antennas to harass airliners on takeoff/landing.
The very fact that FAA and FCC panic over passenger electronics is clue #1 that we have a problem and it goes well beyond the average moron with a cell phone.
We have it and it works for our international travelers. iPass also has US domestic service, but the pricing is about $5/hr, which is a bit steep for anything other than occasional use. Unless you have a huge number of users, you probably need an iPass reseller, such as Worldhook.
For those who need international dialup, there is no reason to be paying a monthly charge, because nobody offers flat-rate international service.
I agree; Europe & Asia are the world leaders in protectionism.
I found it interesting that the person who described Europe as "open" managed to ignore the fact that it is only open to europeans.
If I am a citizen of Iowa and I get a job in North Dakota, that's pretty much the same thing. By that standard, we're just as "open" as they are!
You are probably right about the challenge of getting all the content (legally) under one roof. Of course, nothing prevented the industry from getting this material onto store shelves originally. Now that we have a dirt-cheap method of distribution, it somehow becomes a problem. As you say, reasonable expiration of copyrights would lead to a public domain music distribution industry that would compete with RIAA.
"The catalog is so much bigger than they could ever support at a physical store"
I can get a 2.5TB disk array for about $12K, a kick-ass Linux file server with fiber channel for about $8K, and a bunch of touch-screen kiosks with CD burners for about $6K each. Set up the kiosks, using what might be called "LAN Napster" (LANster?) to pull files on demand from the server in the back room. You pick your files, they download pretty much instantly, scan the old credit card and hit "burn".
Add some soft couches, a "listen with headphones" mode, a coffee bar, and Voila! profitability returned to the music industry. Of course, they would have to be willing to sell one song at a time, and it would have to be reasonably priced, since P2P is the competition. The buying experience would have to be convenient and fun, no waiting, DRM, or other nonsense. In theory, P2P activity would drop to a nuisance level. After all, everyone knows it can be slow, you don't always get what you want, and the whole process takes time. Take way the thrill of rejecting $18.99 pricing, crippled CDs, crappy albums, and inadequate choices, and P2P loses much of its appeal.
All they have to do is abandon a dying sales model and their unsustainable pricing. The solution is so simple, and yet the RIAA could mess up a one-car funeral.
Maybe the swappers have as much material as they want. The current offerings at the store are so pitiful that they aren't worth downloading, much less buying.
If I worked for RIAA, I would use P2P activity as a leading indicator of future sales. Reduced P2P activity means the current products are not very popular. When will they learn?
"...some companies will only do large salary adjustments if you have an offer from somewhere else for them to match/beat."
Even though counteroffers are fairly common, most employers feel as if they are getting "robbed" by someone who is exploiting the situation. Their logic is a bit warped, but the perception becomes reality. Future raises will be low end of low, and promotions will go to someone else. After all, "We are paying John Smith too much already. We have others that deserve something as well."
Employers have a limitless supply of excuses to avoid large salary adjustments. They will attempt to validate the status quo, often making irrelevent "internal equity" comparisons that ignore the problem that caused the discussion in the first place. Incredibly, the money that is "not in the budget" to retain existing employees is somehow available to hire a less experienced replacement from the outside.
The best strategy is to pursue other opportunities. Get a better offer, accept the offer, and quit. Otherwise, you may force the current employer to cough up a few dollars, but the problem will be back sooner than you think. Besides, who wants to work in an environment driven by last-ditch counteroffers?
Not to be overused, of course, but consider the advantages:
1. You have the ability to launch a project in the absence of a complete specification. If your customer is truly unable to describe what they want (until they see a Q&D system that gets part of the job done), then what is to be gained by dragging out the specifications process until any potential benefits have been lost? At the end of the day, the PHBs get the impression that "Our IT people couldn't get it done."
2: You have the built-in escape from a failed project. "This is just a prototype system that will help us build the specifications for a REAL system later... Let's deploy this little toy and learn from the experience." Of course, there is a very real chance that the "prototype" goes into real production. But if the project sucks, then it's super-easy to activate spin-control and launch the formal design of the "real" project. What is the escape route when you are $150K into the design/planning process and you suddenly realize that the goals are unattainable?
3. Consider the world of rapidly changing requirements, where the target moves faster than the geeks can write code. When does the traditional process catch up with the latest requirements? NEVER
4. Although documentation suffers, this is not always a bad thing. It certainly creates a dependency on the people who delivered the project, especially after a few of these little "science projects" are performing mission-critical tasks. Ask some of the currently unemployed geeks how their formal project plans and documentation made their employers feel safe in cutting the IT dept.
5. We have competitive issues arising from offshore outsourcers, and H1B labor. If there is one method that these people are in no position to emulate, it is the "Q&D, design while build" technique. The time zone and language barriers are both show-stoppers for Q&D projects.
Maybe the PHBs would stop looking to squeeze every IT dollar if we simply delivered useful projects a bit cheaper and alot quicker, even if the quality is not precisely as we might like. Hell, it sure works for Microsoft!
The Q&D method is inappropriate for large projects or inexperienced staff. There are skills for "guerilla tactics" that not all developers or managers have. Not every problem should be handled with Q&D methods, but there is a time and place for this kind of thing.
Which is the more satisfying job: leading a small group of IT commandos and attacking relatively small targets, or leading an army of morons in a war of attrition, armed with a 3-inch thick plan that is riddled with inconsistencies?
Years ago, I remember insisting on a formal approach and getting mostly criticism in return. Now I am flexible. Experience has shown me that I have to put aside professional pride when the immediate interests of my customer are better served by a band-aid approach. It's all very simple: If we take care of our customers, then we create positive karma, and some of that comes back to us. If we miss an opportunity to take care of a customer, then the competition takes care of them for us. Nobody was ever promoted because they held back a project until the specs and docs were complete. The risk of a missed opportunity is sky-high, whereas the risk of a half-assed project is often manageable, especially if the cost is kept low.
If I receive all this e-mail and the sender(s) own it, then their property is occupying space on my hard drive. I own that space, therefore I am entitled to charge rent, as documented in my SMTP banner. Don't like my rates ($50 processing fee + $5 per byte per month)? Don't use my space. Legally binding proof that the sender owns the e-mail is most of what I would need to initiate collection actions against all of my favorite spammers. I don't see how this logic is any shakier than the standard EULA.
"No ? Really ? Messrs Microsoft, you should at least find someone who doesn't work for you to praise your products."
The last time they tried that, it was the Valerie Mallinson "Switch" campaign. Oops! She worked for M$ (indirectly) also. At least now they admit it when the kudos come from their own people.
Oh well, at least we know how much they could save by switching to open source.
Granted, the people who invented the concept of civil disobedience used "arrest me" tactics. At the time, the arrests were part of the strategy, as there was no other way to get the necessary publicity. One of the key concepts is that massive civil disobedience can overwhelm the enforcement process that an individual may be subjected to. Consider your "laptops at the courthouse" example. If 2 million people show up at the courthouse with their laptops, you can rest assured that a very low percentage will be arrested.
Quiet downloading is not civil disobedience in the classic sense of the word, however the quiet-but-measurable presence of millions of people accomplishes very much the same thing. This is how to get 2 million people involved without having to figure out how to keep the batteries charged. The basic concept, "They can't possibly arrest all of us", is part of what makes civil disobedience work.
"Open" civil disobedience can be used to draw attention to the enforcement mechanism, whereas "quiet" civil disobedience can draw attention to the "inevitable reality" of normal behavior. Nobody ever said it had to be easy for the enforcers to arrest the protesters.
For the record, I think wide-open P2P is abusive to the rights of the copyright holders -- but the rights of consumers have been abused just as much. Congress has become to the Internet what France is to the UN -- those annoying people who tell us what to do but are unable to impose their will on the unwilling.
I would be shocked if Microsoft didn't have a large groups of people studying Linux; they may very well have their own internal distro. Considering that M$ needs all the security help it can get, NSA would be a good base for such a thing.
The real goal of M$ Linux would be to take concepts that work and port them back to Windows, so as to reinforce the monopoly in the places where it is crumbling. They might try to use marketing magic to bring some of the NSA credibility to Windows, although they are a long way from having a product that would remain secure long enough to make the effort worthwhile.
Microsoft is a mature IT company. They have to hold onto Windows because any other technology will cannibalize their revenue stream faster than new customers can replenish it. They face a dilemma in that competitors are free to bring their Linux submarines to periscope depth and launch torpedoes at the M$ battleship.
There may be a point in the future when some other technology undercuts or outperforms Linux and the Red Hats of the world have grown to a size where they can't adopt the new stuff without killing their existing base.
As we all know, Orin, Fritz, and the usual suspects are interested in letting the copyright industry attack those who are accused of copyright violations.
If they pass such a law, can we all go black hat on SCO based on their alleged GPL violations?
From the article: "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"
In a recent survey, 10 out of 10 consumers attempt to avoid substandard dental care.
The problem is that a SCO buyout rewards Canopy group, thus encouraging Canopy (and others) to try stunts like this. These bottom-feeders will be back with a new lawsuit every day of the week if this tactic turns a profit.
In the end game: suit or no suit, settlement or no settlement, SCO has little to sell and nobody to sell it to. If IBM takes a hardline attitude (and they win), SCO will be unable to deploy their executive golden parachutes. If McBride & associates actually want to continue their careers, then it becomes interesting.
These folks won't accept anything short of selling mediocre albums for $18.99.
In other news, SCO has just signed up Linkin Park, Radiohead, Madonna, Jewel and Green Day as the sole content providers for their new "Buy our albums or we'll sue" online music service.
I think the best strategy is to make HR unsuccessful, bordering on radioactive (figuratively, of course). Make an example out of her.
Now that makes sense. He certainly meets the "negative karma" requirement, and he will be looking for work soon enough. If he can bring the same level of success to RIAA, that would be real justice for a change.
Your reply is pretty much in the spirit of what I had in mind. Having read your post, I envision a moderated blog where the SCO claims and other high-level issues are the topics. The visitors post their contributions, subject to a fascist editor who tries to keep the signal-to-noise ratio within reason.
There are many better people who can do a better job of this than I can, but if nothing appears within a week or so, I may very well take a shot at it.
All of these facts about "Ancient Unix", predictions of SCO shenanigans, the wayback machine, etc. are obviously of some interest to IBM. Aside from commenting in Slashdot (and hoping that IBM is reading), is there a better way to share this useful research? I have nothing to offer besides a general disdain for SCO (as if there was a shortage of that), but others seem to be digging up some fine dirt.
The OSS people have collaborative efforts on so many development projects, I think this is an opportunity to "turn the aircraft carrier into the wind" and focus the OSS "mental firepower" to sink SCO. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine myself agreeing with IBM (on anything), but here we are. Yes, I actually want a Fortune 500 company to have its way with a [former] Linux distributor. It must be snowing in Hell.
"And it'll be hard to prove one isn't a professional litigious bastard while suing someone else for being called that"
Ah yes, the Catch-22 defense.