"You live a sheltered life, doncha? There are quite a lot of people who think the government is big and greedy. They're called Republicans."
You really think that?
I've not seen one Republican placed in power (not since Reagan anyway) who even gave LIP SERVICE to ROLLING BACK government in size and power.
When all's said and done, the Democrats will grow government in size and power 10% per year. Republicans 7%. Whoop de doo!
Only ONE party has a platform based on rolling back government to it's LEGAL level (ie: Constitution, getting rid of ALL functions and powers not expressely granted or amended into the Constitution), and that's the Libertarians.
A tiny minority party, sadly. But the only one that resembles what the Founders believed in.
"Seems like this would do more harm than good. It might make expansion and/or relocation in other states more cost effective. This means growth that would have been in FL, which in turn would mean additional tax revenue, will likely go elsewhere. And, if it leads to companies downsizing and relocating out of FL, then you end up with a loss of revenue for the state."
Seems to me that Florida could kiss ANY SORT OF IT industrial base that it has goodbye...
As well as any large office...
As well as desirable population with IT skills who'd leave with them...
Is that possibility worth the revenue this tax might provide?
You know, Nielsen is located in Florida. I have a friend who used to work in IT for them. They have a HUGE network.
You know, I bet 49 other states would fall all over themselves to offer them a new home...
"The government is different from a corporation. It has guns, and it makes the laws. This doesn't mean the government is bad... but it's... different. There's a lot of power there, and a need for responsibility."
Unfortunately, the notion that the government should use the LEAST AMOUNT OF POWER necessary to uphold it's Constitutional mandates is a very outmoded idea not held by ANY major political party in almost 100 years!
"I can see the headlines now. "Joseph McMurphy has been artrested in Altamonte Springs, Florida, for allegedly possessing the equivalent of 6 Internet servers without paying network wiring taxes. This amount, roughly equivalent to 60 small Web sites or 600 personal sites......."
Think what "RIAA Math" would do to my "tax bracket" if I bought that Linksys gigabit switch I want VERY badly soon as it comes down below $150 or so...
I suppose my 100Mb full duplex switched network (5 PC's in the whole house) REALLY counts as 100 PC's, because the network is potentially TWENTY times as fast as a 10Mb half duplex network...
Suddenly my tax bill will be 100 times my income!;)
"Realy though, it sounds like a cash grab. Government sees money, so it always wants to get a slice of the pie. You will see this more and more in an effort to pay for the over-inflated security budgets of states due to terrorism."
And the overinflated "social" spending budget. That 40 years after it's inception leaves us with the same poverty rate we had when it started.
I'm all for taxation and government... To take the MINIMAL amount it needs to provide the MINIMUM amount of oversight needed to enforce laws and keep civil order.
It seems to me that taxes have ALREADY BEEN PAID on LAN equipment (income and sales). Why should stuff used on PRIVATE PROPERTY be taxed on use, when the government has no role or expense in it's creation or operation?
You know, why doesn't government ever get labeled as "big" or "greedy" as profiteering corps do, when government is the BIGGEST corporation of them all, and the ONLY one (well, the RIAA is close now) that has the power to use guns to enforce it's will...
Everyone who has two PC's sharing internet from a router has a LAN and would be subject to tax.
Taxation that would be COMPLETELY unjustifiable. How can PRIVATE infrastructure that government has no role in creating or maintaining be justifiably taxed?! That I've ALREADY paid tax on, for the income that BOUGHT the equipment, and then on the router, NICs, switch and cabling when I purchased them?
If this flies, don't think that other tax-hungry states, like WV or KY (where I work and live) won't follow suit. At home here, I have a LAN infrastructure that rivals most small businesses... It seems unfair to tax me because of my expertise in creating it!
So, what will happen? Government revenue agents busting down doors looking for CAT 5 cable and 802.11 antennas?
But then, don't sucessful people have broadband and home LANs? Taxation is all about punishing (discouraging) success to feed failure, I guess.
"Why are people so upset with RFIDs? The only possible reason I can see is that they are afraid of being tracked all the way home with them. That is a simple matter of removing the tag when you leave the store."
What if manufacturers don't place the tags in a way that makes them easy to remove?
"Using RFIDs will save billions of dollars a year. Those savings will translate to lower prices for you. What can possibly be wrong about that?"
Allowing cops to search private property at will (no warrant)would probably reduce crime. But do you want to live in that world?
That statement is also like saying that if p2p apps were finally eliminated (pass the CBDTPA, and the Berman "hack" law), put a $5 "tax" on every blank CD or DVD-R, and the RIAA quits losing $billions (so they say) to copyright infringement CD's won't cost $18 anymore.
"That's a completely separate issue. Sure it'd be nice to have 1 million people sue SCO (on what grounds I'm not sure). But SCO is forcing our hand by filing lawsuits against us. There isn't anything we can do to prevent this. So we need to make sure that we as defendant's don't say "well, $699 is cheaper than a lawsuit, I fold." That is (I presume) SCO's strategy -- the let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. They probably don't have any intention of actually suing anyone. And why would you if you can get them to pay by just sending out a threating letter. That is (or should be) our worst nightmare."
No, it'd be a nightmare if they actually FILED the suits. I don't think that they will.
And anyone who receives such a threatening letter has cause to file suit against SCO. As does the vendor of the Linux you have, and the authors of the code.
A threat in writing is actionable. SCO has to be able to back the allegations contained therin.
"No, because the programs are seperately licensed. However, you could make the argument that SCO's public comments are a rejection of the GPL, probably through their comment that it was illegal. Since I doubt you can agree to a contract that you know is illegal, SCO did not agree to the terms of the GPL and is thus not allowed to distribute Samba."
If SCO is claiming the GPL's provision that allows redistribiution is illegal, then they have forefited their right to distribute ANY GPLED CODE. They are infringing on copyright themselves.
They can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't say the GPL is "invalid" with respect to one program and then take advantage of it in another.
And IBM/Redhat's lawyers will surely harp on this point...
"If any case screams out for class action it's this one. What can we do to make sure that all of the linux defendents get lumped into one class that acts together? This will prevent SCO from bullying 1 million defendants with 1 million lawsuits. Instead it'll get cleared up with only one trial. Should we set up a website? I'm sure there will be no shortage of great lawyers who would handle our case."
That is exactly what you DONT want...
You want 1 million PLANTIFFS and 1 million lawsuits. In every state, locale, and country. SCO will go bankrupt trying to defend themselves from them. Boies and company are working on contingency for their ASSAULT only. Defense attorneys never work on contingency.
And SCO will try to avoid this. Note that they didn't respond to the Linux Tag injunction in Germany, they are effectively banned from spreading Linux FUD in Germany until they show the code.
Another thing that needs to be done... Boies, et all, WHOMEVER is giving them legal adive needs to have action taken against THEM by Linux users, authors, distros, etc. They need to be disbarred, or at the very least, censured.
SCO is a small company itself. And in filing their suit, they invite countersuit from ANY AND ALL Linux users soon as they make the claim.
It's a bluff. Hire a lawyer. Insist on trial. SCO won't show up. They CANNOT reveal the code, and they will have to in order to prove that the Linux on your servers infringe their copyright.
"You know, I thought their stock price was getting a little low"
Yep. Every time their stock stops rising, or falls, they make another stupid pronouncement. But it's not working that well anymore, I've noticed they hover around $10, and all their wacko PR does anymore is make it go back to $10...
Ok, so they are going to sue end users. I SERIOUSLY doubt they will sue someone outside the US though (they didn't even contest the LinuxTag action in Germany).
Let them sue. In order to GET to court, they are going to have to make a claim of copyright infringement. The Constitution allows you the right to the evidence against you (discovery). In other words, there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER SCO can actually GET someone into trial without showing the code!
Methinks this scenerio is what Red Hat set up their legal defense fund for. So that any user threatened can call SCO's bluff, for that is WHAT THIS HAS TO BE, they have no intention of EVER showing the code. This is a bluff designed to scare linguini-spined people into capitulating.
I have three Linux boxes, Darl. Sue me. I DARE you. I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!;)
"There is still a lot of work to do. Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code. Their entire offense is going to rest solely upon the fact that they have a plaintext file with an earlier date than the linux kernel's corresponding code file."
Wrong.
Even in a civil proceeding, it's the legal obligation of the ACCUSER, not the accused to prove their claim.
SCO will have to prove that there is identical code, that it was stolen, that it is theirs, and that their use of the GPL doesn't invalidate their claims.
SCO has to prove the code was stolen. It's nearly inpossible to prove a negative, and without them telling anyone WHAT they claim was stolen, it's quite completely impossible.
Which is why SCO will probably lose ANY hope of damages from copyright infringement. In infringement cases, they have to specify WHAT is stolen. They have to allow the infringement to be ceased. Damages would come from Linux developers NOT removing the infringing code.
Instead, SCO wants to keep the code secret so the infringement MUST continue, so they can use FUD to sell licenses that most likely no one needs.
This is why SCO hasn't even FILED a copyright infringement suit. Their current suit is purely about breach of contract with IBM. However, the Red Hat countersuit relates DIRECTLY to their copyright claims, and it will force SCO to put up or shut up on their infringement claims.
If the GPL is ruled invalid, then EVERY "shrinkwrap" EULA is invalid.
The GPL doesn't take ONE SINGLE RIGHT away from you that is granted by copyright law. It grants you rights you DO NOT have under copyright law (redistrobution, right to use the code to make derivitive works), only if you meet it's condition (license derivitive works under the GPL).
As much as MS would like to do away with the GPL (the GPL itself is what makes it impossible for MS to do away with Linux by conventional methods), to have EULA's ruled invalid would have a DEVASTATING effect on them...
SCO execs have stock. And stock options. A number of them cashed some of these in recently and made a SHITLOAD of money where before all this slander there was none to be had.
SCO execs are calling the shots on their ridiculous press releases. Any coincidence? I think not.
"Yeah, sure. Just like all the executives at Enron and Worldcom went to jail after all their illegal acounting and other shady business practices. I don't think so. Your faith in the FTC and SEC makes me laugh!"
Considering that, comparatively, SCO is a flyspeck of a company, and that it likely has no huge political allies (or politicos who have been "gifted" by it), they are FAR, FAR more likely to get the hammer dropped on them by the SEC, as a show that they are "serious" about this kind of thing.
On the other hand, Boies is representing them... Boies has been a Democrat party pawn for some time, so that may suggest some political connections there...
"As there is an amazing amount of comment here about what we all see as something the SEC should look into, I can't help but wonder if anyone here has either picked up the phone or dropped an email to the SEC itself to clue them in, since they don't appear to be paying attention. Maybe we should all take 5 minutes out of our day?"
Considering that SCO has already said they had terminated IBM's AIX license (some weeks back), this announcement is clearly another stock pump..
EVERY TIME their stock price levels or goes down, SCO makes another ridiculous announcement to get a biz headline to make it go back up.
This time, I'm betting yesterday's executive stock dump story was the trigger...
Last
9.93 Change
+0.20 % Change
+2.11% Previous Close
9.72 Day's Low
9.70 Day's High
10.23 Volume
41,266
And it's working too... Morons... Are investors as stupid as the average computer user?!
"'I can't help but wonder how much influence Slashdot might have on SCO stock price.
Like if Slashdot were to "accidentally" publish a story like "SCO Insider Reveals Code Copied From Linux to UnixWare!' - how much would the stock drop?"
If investors in SCOX were reading Slashdot they wouldn't buy it in the first place....
Most likely they are bottom-feeders who are gambling on the lawsuit as if it were a lottery.
Anyone who loses their shirt on this stock DESERVES it to happen...
"Given all this, it's not surprising the seemingly unimpressive figure of 2% of insider shares have only been sold --- yet. The rules were designed to slow this sort of thing down."
Consider that this 2% of stock was virtually worthless before SCO became a lawsuit factory and hired Baghdad Bob as their PR CONsultant, selling that 2% now is more significant...
Consider the exec who excercised a 60-something cent option and immediately sold 6,000 shares at roughly $10 a share. For sake of argument, say that $.90 was the average price of SCO before the suit (that is being a little generous).
So, instead of making:
6,000 shares X.60 = $3600 (investment)
6,000 shares X.90 = $5400 (sale price)
= $1,800 profit
The guy made this:
6,000 shares X.60 = $3600 (investment)
6,000 shares X 10.00 = $60,000 (sale price)
= $56,400 profit
Can anyone argue that without the lawsuit (which has yet to be substantiated), and a LOT of loud PR (making unsubstantiated claims) that this guy would have made that kind of money from excercising an option?
How many investors, who didn't have penny stock options on SCOX, and aren't insiders who knew this suit was going to be filed (and thus may have passed around a lot of options before to each other), who have INFLUENCE on the type of claims SCO makes, will make that kind of profit on a $3,600 investment?
Clearly there is something for the SEC to look at.
Maybe SCO execs can't sell 200,000 shares each, but they've clearly made themselves an ASSLOAD of cash out of hot air press releases...
I keep my cell off a lot. Why? I use it for MY convienence... It's for me to make a call, not to be pestered when I'm in the car, at the mall, eating dinner, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"You live a sheltered life, doncha? There are quite a lot of people who think the government is big and greedy. They're called Republicans."
You really think that?
I've not seen one Republican placed in power (not since Reagan anyway) who even gave LIP SERVICE to ROLLING BACK government in size and power.
When all's said and done, the Democrats will grow government in size and power 10% per year. Republicans 7%. Whoop de doo!
Only ONE party has a platform based on rolling back government to it's LEGAL level (ie: Constitution, getting rid of ALL functions and powers not expressely granted or amended into the Constitution), and that's the Libertarians.
A tiny minority party, sadly. But the only one that resembles what the Founders believed in.
"Seems like this would do more harm than good. It might make expansion and/or relocation in other states more cost effective. This means growth that would have been in FL, which in turn would mean additional tax revenue, will likely go elsewhere. And, if it leads to companies downsizing and relocating out of FL, then you end up with a loss of revenue for the state."
Seems to me that Florida could kiss ANY SORT OF IT industrial base that it has goodbye...
As well as any large office...
As well as desirable population with IT skills who'd leave with them...
Is that possibility worth the revenue this tax might provide?
You know, Nielsen is located in Florida. I have a friend who used to work in IT for them. They have a HUGE network.
You know, I bet 49 other states would fall all over themselves to offer them a new home...
"The government is different from a corporation. It has guns, and it makes the laws. This doesn't mean the government is bad... but it's... different. There's a lot of power there, and a need for responsibility."
Unfortunately, the notion that the government should use the LEAST AMOUNT OF POWER necessary to uphold it's Constitutional mandates is a very outmoded idea not held by ANY major political party in almost 100 years!
"I can see the headlines now. "Joseph McMurphy has been artrested in Altamonte Springs, Florida, for allegedly possessing the equivalent of 6 Internet servers without paying network wiring taxes. This amount, roughly equivalent to 60 small Web sites or 600 personal sites......."
;)
Think what "RIAA Math" would do to my "tax bracket" if I bought that Linksys gigabit switch I want VERY badly soon as it comes down below $150 or so...
I suppose my 100Mb full duplex switched network (5 PC's in the whole house) REALLY counts as 100 PC's, because the network is potentially TWENTY times as fast as a 10Mb half duplex network...
Suddenly my tax bill will be 100 times my income!
"Realy though, it sounds like a cash grab. Government sees money, so it always wants to get a slice of the pie. You will see this more and more in an effort to pay for the over-inflated security budgets of states due to terrorism."
And the overinflated "social" spending budget. That 40 years after it's inception leaves us with the same poverty rate we had when it started.
I'm all for taxation and government... To take the MINIMAL amount it needs to provide the MINIMUM amount of oversight needed to enforce laws and keep civil order.
It seems to me that taxes have ALREADY BEEN PAID on LAN equipment (income and sales). Why should stuff used on PRIVATE PROPERTY be taxed on use, when the government has no role or expense in it's creation or operation?
You know, why doesn't government ever get labeled as "big" or "greedy" as profiteering corps do, when government is the BIGGEST corporation of them all, and the ONLY one (well, the RIAA is close now) that has the power to use guns to enforce it's will...
Everyone who has two PC's sharing internet from a router has a LAN and would be subject to tax.
Taxation that would be COMPLETELY unjustifiable. How can PRIVATE infrastructure that government has no role in creating or maintaining be justifiably taxed?! That I've ALREADY paid tax on, for the income that BOUGHT the equipment, and then on the router, NICs, switch and cabling when I purchased them?
If this flies, don't think that other tax-hungry states, like WV or KY (where I work and live) won't follow suit. At home here, I have a LAN infrastructure that rivals most small businesses... It seems unfair to tax me because of my expertise in creating it!
So, what will happen? Government revenue agents busting down doors looking for CAT 5 cable and 802.11 antennas?
But then, don't sucessful people have broadband and home LANs? Taxation is all about punishing (discouraging) success to feed failure, I guess.
Now the geeks have been targeted.
"Why are people so upset with RFIDs? The only possible reason I can see is that they are afraid of being tracked all the way home with them. That is a simple matter of removing the tag when you leave the store."
What if manufacturers don't place the tags in a way that makes them easy to remove?
"Using RFIDs will save billions of dollars a year. Those savings will translate to lower prices for you. What can possibly be wrong about that?"
Allowing cops to search private property at will (no warrant)would probably reduce crime. But do you want to live in that world?
That statement is also like saying that if p2p apps were finally eliminated (pass the CBDTPA, and the Berman "hack" law), put a $5 "tax" on every blank CD or DVD-R, and the RIAA quits losing $billions (so they say) to copyright infringement CD's won't cost $18 anymore.
We BOTH know that would never happen.
"That's a completely separate issue. Sure it'd be nice to have 1 million people sue SCO (on what grounds I'm not sure). But SCO is forcing our hand by filing lawsuits against us. There isn't anything we can do to prevent this. So we need to make sure that we as defendant's don't say "well, $699 is cheaper than a lawsuit, I fold." That is (I presume) SCO's strategy -- the let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. They probably don't have any intention of actually suing anyone. And why would you if you can get them to pay by just sending out a threating letter. That is (or should be) our worst nightmare."
No, it'd be a nightmare if they actually FILED the suits. I don't think that they will.
And anyone who receives such a threatening letter has cause to file suit against SCO. As does the vendor of the Linux you have, and the authors of the code.
A threat in writing is actionable. SCO has to be able to back the allegations contained therin.
Ain't workin anymore!
l ?i Page=lqd&Symbol=scox
http://moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/webquote.dl
This stock pump doesn't seem to be helping... You know, there is a "law of diminishing returns" that applies to everything...
FUD built on outrageous FUD diminishes in effectiveness the more times it's tried.
"so when exactly does this meet the legal definition of extortion ?"
Technically, it did the first time they issued a threat, and started collecting license fees from people who never bought anything off of them.
"No, because the programs are seperately licensed. However, you could make the argument that SCO's public comments are a rejection of the GPL, probably through their comment that it was illegal. Since I doubt you can agree to a contract that you know is illegal, SCO did not agree to the terms of the GPL and is thus not allowed to distribute Samba."
If SCO is claiming the GPL's provision that allows redistribiution is illegal, then they have forefited their right to distribute ANY GPLED CODE. They are infringing on copyright themselves.
They can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't say the GPL is "invalid" with respect to one program and then take advantage of it in another.
And IBM/Redhat's lawyers will surely harp on this point...
"If any case screams out for class action it's this one. What can we do to make sure that all of the linux defendents get lumped into one class that acts together? This will prevent SCO from bullying 1 million defendants with 1 million lawsuits. Instead it'll get cleared up with only one trial. Should we set up a website? I'm sure there will be no shortage of great lawyers who would handle our case."
That is exactly what you DONT want...
You want 1 million PLANTIFFS and 1 million lawsuits. In every state, locale, and country. SCO will go bankrupt trying to defend themselves from them. Boies and company are working on contingency for their ASSAULT only. Defense attorneys never work on contingency.
And SCO will try to avoid this. Note that they didn't respond to the Linux Tag injunction in Germany, they are effectively banned from spreading Linux FUD in Germany until they show the code.
Another thing that needs to be done... Boies, et all, WHOMEVER is giving them legal adive needs to have action taken against THEM by Linux users, authors, distros, etc. They need to be disbarred, or at the very least, censured.
"Not even that. Boies is working on contingency. Unless they win he gets nothing."
With the crappy advice SCO seems to be getting, I'd say they are getting what they paid for...
SCO is a small company itself. And in filing their suit, they invite countersuit from ANY AND ALL Linux users soon as they make the claim.
It's a bluff. Hire a lawyer. Insist on trial. SCO won't show up. They CANNOT reveal the code, and they will have to in order to prove that the Linux on your servers infringe their copyright.
""Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement,"
WILLFUL infringemetnt? So far only SCO PRESS RELEASES claim infringement. They have not filed EVEN ONE CLAIM of copyright infringement.
Only after they sue you and THEN SHOW that you are infringing (if they bother to file an injunction) does the infringement become "willful".
For pete's sake, WHERE did Boies get his law degree? From a CRACKER JACK box?!
"You know, I thought their stock price was getting a little low"
;)
Yep. Every time their stock stops rising, or falls, they make another stupid pronouncement. But it's not working that well anymore, I've noticed they hover around $10, and all their wacko PR does anymore is make it go back to $10...
Ok, so they are going to sue end users. I SERIOUSLY doubt they will sue someone outside the US though (they didn't even contest the LinuxTag action in Germany).
Let them sue. In order to GET to court, they are going to have to make a claim of copyright infringement. The Constitution allows you the right to the evidence against you (discovery). In other words, there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER SCO can actually GET someone into trial without showing the code!
Methinks this scenerio is what Red Hat set up their legal defense fund for. So that any user threatened can call SCO's bluff, for that is WHAT THIS HAS TO BE, they have no intention of EVER showing the code. This is a bluff designed to scare linguini-spined people into capitulating.
I have three Linux boxes, Darl. Sue me. I DARE you. I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!
"SCO to World: Fuck you."
World to SCO:
STOMP!
"There is still a lot of work to do. Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code. Their entire offense is going to rest solely upon the fact that they have a plaintext file with an earlier date than the linux kernel's corresponding code file."
Wrong.
Even in a civil proceeding, it's the legal obligation of the ACCUSER, not the accused to prove their claim.
SCO will have to prove that there is identical code, that it was stolen, that it is theirs, and that their use of the GPL doesn't invalidate their claims.
SCO has to prove the code was stolen. It's nearly inpossible to prove a negative, and without them telling anyone WHAT they claim was stolen, it's quite completely impossible.
Which is why SCO will probably lose ANY hope of damages from copyright infringement. In infringement cases, they have to specify WHAT is stolen. They have to allow the infringement to be ceased. Damages would come from Linux developers NOT removing the infringing code.
Instead, SCO wants to keep the code secret so the infringement MUST continue, so they can use FUD to sell licenses that most likely no one needs.
This is why SCO hasn't even FILED a copyright infringement suit. Their current suit is purely about breach of contract with IBM. However, the Red Hat countersuit relates DIRECTLY to their copyright claims, and it will force SCO to put up or shut up on their infringement claims.
My guess it's the latter.
If the GPL is ruled invalid, then EVERY "shrinkwrap" EULA is invalid.
The GPL doesn't take ONE SINGLE RIGHT away from you that is granted by copyright law. It grants you rights you DO NOT have under copyright law (redistrobution, right to use the code to make derivitive works), only if you meet it's condition (license derivitive works under the GPL).
As much as MS would like to do away with the GPL (the GPL itself is what makes it impossible for MS to do away with Linux by conventional methods), to have EULA's ruled invalid would have a DEVASTATING effect on them...
SCO execs have stock. And stock options. A number of them cashed some of these in recently and made a SHITLOAD of money where before all this slander there was none to be had.
SCO execs are calling the shots on their ridiculous press releases. Any coincidence? I think not.
"Yeah, sure. Just like all the executives at Enron and Worldcom went to jail after all their illegal acounting and other shady business practices. I don't think so. Your faith in the FTC and SEC makes me laugh!"
Considering that, comparatively, SCO is a flyspeck of a company, and that it likely has no huge political allies (or politicos who have been "gifted" by it), they are FAR, FAR more likely to get the hammer dropped on them by the SEC, as a show that they are "serious" about this kind of thing.
On the other hand, Boies is representing them... Boies has been a Democrat party pawn for some time, so that may suggest some political connections there...
"As there is an amazing amount of comment here about what we all see as something the SEC should look into, I can't help but wonder if anyone here has either picked up the phone or dropped an email to the SEC itself to clue them in, since they don't appear to be paying attention. Maybe we should all take 5 minutes out of our day?"
Considering that SCO has already said they had terminated IBM's AIX license (some weeks back), this announcement is clearly another stock pump..
EVERY TIME their stock price levels or goes down, SCO makes another ridiculous announcement to get a biz headline to make it go back up.
This time, I'm betting yesterday's executive stock dump story was the trigger...
Last
9.93
Change
+0.20
% Change
+2.11%
Previous Close
9.72
Day's Low
9.70
Day's High
10.23
Volume
41,266
And it's working too... Morons... Are investors as stupid as the average computer user?!
"'I can't help but wonder how much influence Slashdot might have on SCO stock price.
Like if Slashdot were to "accidentally" publish a story like "SCO Insider Reveals Code Copied From Linux to UnixWare!' - how much would the stock drop?"
If investors in SCOX were reading Slashdot they wouldn't buy it in the first place....
Most likely they are bottom-feeders who are gambling on the lawsuit as if it were a lottery.
Anyone who loses their shirt on this stock DESERVES it to happen...
"Given all this, it's not surprising the seemingly unimpressive figure of 2% of insider shares have only been sold --- yet. The rules were designed to slow this sort of thing down."
.60 = $3600 (investment)
.90 = $5400 (sale price)
.60 = $3600 (investment)
Consider that this 2% of stock was virtually worthless before SCO became a lawsuit factory and hired Baghdad Bob as their PR CONsultant, selling that 2% now is more significant...
For example:
52 Week High
15.02
Day's Low
9.10
52 Week Low
0.78
Consider the exec who excercised a 60-something cent option and immediately sold 6,000 shares at roughly $10 a share. For sake of argument, say that $.90 was the average price of SCO before the suit (that is being a little generous).
So, instead of making:
6,000 shares X
6,000 shares X
= $1,800 profit
The guy made this:
6,000 shares X
6,000 shares X 10.00 = $60,000 (sale price)
= $56,400 profit
Can anyone argue that without the lawsuit (which has yet to be substantiated), and a LOT of loud PR (making unsubstantiated claims) that this guy would have made that kind of money from excercising an option?
How many investors, who didn't have penny stock options on SCOX, and aren't insiders who knew this suit was going to be filed (and thus may have passed around a lot of options before to each other), who have INFLUENCE on the type of claims SCO makes, will make that kind of profit on a $3,600 investment?
Clearly there is something for the SEC to look at.
Maybe SCO execs can't sell 200,000 shares each, but they've clearly made themselves an ASSLOAD of cash out of hot air press releases...
Turn it off...
I keep my cell off a lot. Why? I use it for MY convienence... It's for me to make a call, not to be pestered when I'm in the car, at the mall, eating dinner, etc.