I was all set to admit you were right and I wrong until I read through the whole of the LamLaw reference. The quote from the 10-Q was:
"In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share."
Lamlaw interpreted it as being Microsoft, since they were the only licensee mentioned by name in the 10-Q. Turns out the "first licensee" is Sun, not Microsoft. Sorry, but I Lamlaw got it wrong, not me.
With SCO, it's kind of hard to short. Most brokerages don't have any shares available for shorting. Schwab seems to have them available sometimes, but even that's iffy.
This is probably due to the small "float" (available shares as opposed to total shares). Canopy owns over 40% of SCO's shares. Add in the shares of SCO owned by other Canopy companies (Trolltech, for instance, owns 1.5%), shares owned by Canopy directors *outside* of Canopy's holdings (Yarrow, for instance, owns SCO shares individually and outside of Canopy), shares owned by SCO management, shares owned by contractually affiliated companies (800,000 for John Wall, 210,00 for Sun), and you've got a float left of maybe 30% left among retail investors.
This, of course, makes the stock highly manipulable by people affiliated with SCO. The stock is certainly over-valued, but I would caution against shorting it right now. There is too much opportunity for Market Movers (investment organizations with enough money to actually effect changes in the market individually) or people affiliated with SCO to manipulate the stock to even higher levels before SCO sinks.
16. Don't use linux-abi and/or SCO Unix Libraries for application support. That would infringe on SCO's intellectual property rights, which might hurt their feelings.
SCO's feelings, that is -- the intellectual property rights, being an abstract concept, obviously haven't any.
The stock market was at an all time high just before it crashed in 1929.
It might not be the "beginning of the end", yet, but your reasoning is flawed. SCO's stock will probably be pretty high when it comes crashing down. Wouldn't be a "crash" otherwise.
Nah, it's probably legit. Sontag is talking to someone in Australia, and he probably means they have no plans, and never had any plans, to sue anyone in Oz.
Oz's legal system isn't as bang-up gridlocked as the US's. Which means that if they sued anyone down there, it would go through the courts much faster and leave less time to make money by pumping up the FUD.
"...asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: 'No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone.'"
From the minutes of a SCO conference with counsel, 8/29/03, participants Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, Blake Stowell, David Boies, and Mark Heise:
Darl: We sued IBM!?!?! How'd that happen?
Chris: (looks down at conference table) Ummm...
(glances over to...)
Mark: Well... David said -
Blake: Shut up, Scheisse.
Mark: It's *Heise*, not scheisse.
Blake: (snorts) Yeah, right.
David: Cut it out, guys.
Look. OK, my bad. Chris and I were having drinks at the bar, and talking
about the Microsoft settlement. Anyway, Chris starts going on about how
we should sue Microsoft again. You know, maybe there's some System V code
in Windows and they misappropriated it. That led into a talk about how we
might use it to show how SCO's business has been hurt by Microsoft, and,
well, from there we started talking about how Linux was hurting the
business. And, you know, we started talking about how all the other
companies, like IBM, were helping Linux. And from there, well, somehow
we ended up filing a suit against IBM.
So please don't implicate the community in these purported DoS attacks. It's not clear that there have been any attacks to begin with, and to end with, such attacks would not be supported by us anyway.
I feel like I'm trying to stomp out hundreds of little fires.
The only evidence that SCO has been DoS'd is that they were down, and that ESR claimed it was a DoS.
In other words, the evidence for a DoS attack on SCO is incredibly weak. Even SCO's pronouncements on the subject seem to be carefully crafted to apply just as well to confirming the May attack as one in August. Which, let's face it, is very weird.
I remain *highly* skeptical that they were DoS'd.
That many people base their statements on the subject as if a DoS attack on SCO were a given makes my blood boil. And the statements that suggest "we, the community" are responsible for said attacks enrages me; hell, it's far more entertaining to watch SCO repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. Watching someone else do it is like a watching a sadist take it out on the village idiot, not entertaing at all and in fact kind of nauseating.
So please don't implicate the community these purported DoS attacks. It's clear that there have been any attacks to begin with, and to end with, such attacks would not be supported by us anyway.
"The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that SCO was again the target of a DoS attack. However, the outage was actually due to preventative measures taken by SCO and its hosting service to mitigate the effects of future attacks, according to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki." (http://www.infoworld.com/article/0 3/08/26/HNscodo wn_1.html)
Well, SCO themselves have reported that they have been taking their websites down for maintenance.
We've already noted that canopy.com and other sites hosted out of the same Center 7 network as SCO are not diappearing, but responding just fine when SCO is down.
Furthermore, Centershift, the subject of the article seems to be claiming that its *office* connections are having problems during the attacks on SCO. Seems to be a bit of a disconnect there, in both the metaphorical and literal senses of the word.
So, maybe *you* should read the fucking article and some other sources on the subject before taking at face value reports we already know to be, at best, poorly verified, and possibly just more FUD.
"'Stepping aside from the issues of how, architecturally, this would have spilled over into Centershift's domain, it should be known that bystanders are being injured as this war rages on,' Hafen added."
Problem is, you can't really "step aside" from the architectural issues given the point he is making. The DDoS attacks on SCO have been exclusively aimed, as far as I can tell from the reports, at their *web* sites -- which appear to be located in a Denver co-location.
If the attacks had been aimed at SCO's mail server, or local ISP connection, then then Hafen might have a point. But unless he's using the Denver co-lo for his office connection and e-mail, then I think he just has a problem with his ISP that is unrelated to the DDoS attacks on SCO.
Besides which, I'm still not convinced SCO experienced any kind of DoS last weekend. I think they just came down for maintenance, and have since used misleading - but not outright mendacious - statements to "confirm" that they were attacked:
a) "SCO considered issuing a formal statement in the matter,
said Stowell, but decided against it."
Because a formal statement would have been a denial of the
attack?
b) Stowell has also told the press that the "latest" attack
has been reported to "law enforcement authorities".
If the "latest" attack was in May, then Stowell's statement
would remain as true as if the attack was in August. Note also
the vague phrase "law enforcement authorities" rather than
specifying which agency was contacted, as if Stowell didn't
want anyone following up on the matter. In the May attack,
Stowell was very specific as to which agency the attack had
been reported to - the FBI Cyber Crimes division.
c) When called, people working for SCO either don't know why the
web site is down, or say it was down for an upgrade or
maintenance. I know, because I was one of the people who
called, and I documented the conversation at Groklaw
(http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/, about 2/3 down the page).
d) The recent outages generally start during non-business hours.
SCO possibly had a short DoS attack on Friday afternoon, but
there is no way it kept them down for 3 days; the utter
vagueness of their public announcements regarding it do not
lend confidence to the idea that they experienced any DoS
attack at all; their own employees have consistently told
callers that the site is/was down for maintenance; sites on
the same Center 7 network (canopy.com) were responding
without problems during the SCO outages; and even SCO's
public statements have confirmed that outages since the
weekend outage were for maintenance:
The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that
SCO was again the target of a DoS attack. However,
the outage was actually due to preventative
measures taken by SCO and its hosting service to
mitigate the effects of future attacks, according
to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki.
(http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1233231,00.a sp)
So, in short, I think that a) SCO didn't experience any DoS attacks, and b) that Centershift / Hafen has problems with their ISP and should get a new one rather than making statements to the press that their Internet problems are due to inadequately verified DoS attacks on SCO's webserver in Denver, hundreds of miles away from Centershift's Salt Lake City offices.
IBM collects virgin programmers and sacrifices them each year by throwing them into a volcano to appease the gods. If the gods look with favor upoin IBM's gifts, then they will win the suit against SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
I was all set to admit you were right and I wrong until I read through the whole of the LamLaw reference. The quote from the 10-Q was:
"In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share."
Lamlaw interpreted it as being Microsoft, since they were the only licensee mentioned by name in the 10-Q. Turns out the "first licensee" is Sun, not Microsoft. Sorry, but I Lamlaw got it wrong, not me.
C'mon guys, I know it's my own post, but I still thinks it deserves at least *one* mod for "Insightful".
"SCO claims to know what was copied, so make them post it already."
Yes! Here on Slashdot. And make them read all 1378 responses. Except the -1's. We're not *that* evil. Though, Lord knows, they deserve it.
Yes. That is correct.
With SCO, it's kind of hard to short. Most brokerages don't have any shares available for shorting. Schwab seems to have them available sometimes, but even that's iffy.
This is probably due to the small "float" (available shares as opposed to total shares). Canopy owns over 40% of SCO's shares. Add in the shares of SCO owned by other Canopy companies (Trolltech, for instance, owns 1.5%), shares owned by Canopy directors *outside* of Canopy's holdings (Yarrow, for instance, owns SCO shares individually and outside of Canopy), shares owned by SCO management, shares owned by contractually affiliated companies (800,000 for John Wall, 210,00 for Sun), and you've got a float left of maybe 30% left among retail investors.
This, of course, makes the stock highly manipulable by people affiliated with SCO. The stock is certainly over-valued, but I would caution against shorting it right now. There is too much opportunity for Market Movers (investment organizations with enough money to actually effect changes in the market individually) or people affiliated with SCO to manipulate the stock to even higher levels before SCO sinks.
And... their leader smokes crack.
16. Don't use linux-abi and/or SCO Unix Libraries for application support. That would infringe on SCO's intellectual property rights, which might hurt their feelings.
SCO's feelings, that is -- the intellectual property rights, being an abstract concept, obviously haven't any.
That's an unfair and unprovoked attack on tea-ladies, who are often *very* nice people.
Take it back, you bigoted slug
That was Sun, and it was 210,000 *options* at a buck three-eighty per share. No word on whether they've cashed them in yet or not.
Someone please mod parent up. This troll parody is actually funny.
When it comes to SCO, what difference does that make?
Boies worked for IBM too.
"Martha's a whole lot more irritating than some devout mormon tech guy named Darl"
I beg to differ.
Martha for instance has good hair. And breasts (wait, scratch that, so does Darl). And her flower arrangements look nice.
Darl is way more irritating.
It's like comparing a facial mole, which might also be considered a beauty mark, to a boil on your ass.
The stock market was at an all time high just before it crashed in 1929.
It might not be the "beginning of the end", yet, but your reasoning is flawed. SCO's stock will probably be pretty high when it comes crashing down. Wouldn't be a "crash" otherwise.
Nah, it's probably legit. Sontag is talking to someone in Australia, and he probably means they have no plans, and never had any plans, to sue anyone in Oz.
Oz's legal system isn't as bang-up gridlocked as the US's. Which means that if they sued anyone down there, it would go through the courts much faster and leave less time to make money by pumping up the FUD.
"...asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: 'No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone.'"
From the minutes of a SCO conference with counsel, 8/29/03, participants Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, Blake Stowell, David Boies, and Mark Heise:
Darl: We sued IBM!?!?! How'd that happen?
Chris: (looks down at conference table) Ummm...
(glances over to...)
Mark: Well... David said -
Blake: Shut up, Scheisse.
Mark: It's *Heise*, not scheisse.
Blake: (snorts) Yeah, right.
David: Cut it out, guys.
Look. OK, my bad. Chris and I were having drinks at the bar, and talking
about the Microsoft settlement. Anyway, Chris starts going on about how
we should sue Microsoft again. You know, maybe there's some System V code
in Windows and they misappropriated it. That led into a talk about how we
might use it to show how SCO's business has been hurt by Microsoft, and,
well, from there we started talking about how Linux was hurting the
business. And, you know, we started talking about how all the other
companies, like IBM, were helping Linux. And from there, well, somehow
we ended up filing a suit against IBM.
It's not like we planned on it, you know.
It just sort of... (sighs) happened.
Grammar typo's in last paragraph. Fixed version:
So please don't implicate the community in these purported DoS attacks. It's not clear that there have been any attacks to begin with, and to end with, such attacks would not be supported by us anyway.
I feel like I'm trying to stomp out hundreds of little fires.
The only evidence that SCO has been DoS'd is that they were down, and that ESR claimed it was a DoS.
In other words, the evidence for a DoS attack on SCO is incredibly weak. Even SCO's pronouncements on the subject seem to be carefully crafted to apply just as well to confirming the May attack as one in August. Which, let's face it, is very weird.
I remain *highly* skeptical that they were DoS'd.
That many people base their statements on the subject as if a DoS attack on SCO were a given makes my blood boil. And the statements that suggest "we, the community" are responsible for said attacks enrages me; hell, it's far more entertaining to watch SCO repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. Watching someone else do it is like a watching a sadist take it out on the village idiot, not entertaing at all and in fact kind of nauseating.
So please don't implicate the community these purported DoS attacks. It's clear that there have been any attacks to begin with, and to end with, such attacks would not be supported by us anyway.
Hey, just because someone takes a stock in Hell doesn't mean they're a bad person. Maybe they just want to "spruce the place up"
It is not only possible, it is confirmed by SCO.
0 3/08/26/HNscodo wn_1.html)
"The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that SCO was again the target of a DoS attack. However, the outage was actually due to preventative measures taken by SCO and its hosting service to mitigate the effects of future attacks, according to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki."
(http://www.infoworld.com/article/
Well, SCO themselves have reported that they have been taking their websites down for maintenance.
We've already noted that canopy.com and other sites hosted out of the same Center 7 network as SCO are not diappearing, but responding just fine when SCO is down.
Furthermore, Centershift, the subject of the article seems to be claiming that its *office* connections are having problems during the attacks on SCO. Seems to be a bit of a disconnect there, in both the metaphorical and literal senses of the word.
So, maybe *you* should read the fucking article and some other sources on the subject before taking at face value reports we already know to be, at best, poorly verified, and possibly just more FUD.
It's already hosted on Linux. Which is a pretty decent OS, IMHO.
So, in short, when they owned DR-DOS they did pick "on Microsoft with the same fervor as they're doing with IBM."
"I highly doubt that SCO is peforming this attack themselves."
I doubt it too. I think they have simply been down for maintenance, as they will tell if you call and ask them.
"'Stepping aside from the issues of how, architecturally, this would have spilled over into Centershift's domain, it should be known that bystanders are being injured as this war rages on,' Hafen added."
Problem is, you can't really "step aside" from the architectural issues given the point he is making. The DDoS attacks on SCO have been exclusively aimed, as far as I can tell from the reports, at their *web* sites -- which appear to be located in a Denver co-location.
If the attacks had been aimed at SCO's mail server, or local ISP connection, then then Hafen might have a point. But unless he's using the Denver co-lo for his office connection and e-mail, then I think he just has a problem with his ISP that is unrelated to the DDoS attacks on SCO.
Besides which, I'm still not convinced SCO experienced any kind of DoS last weekend. I think they just came down for maintenance, and have since used misleading - but not outright mendacious - statements to "confirm" that they were attacked:
a) "SCO considered issuing a formal statement in the matter,
said Stowell, but decided against it."
Because a formal statement would have been a denial of the
attack?
b) Stowell has also told the press that the "latest" attack
has been reported to "law enforcement authorities".
If the "latest" attack was in May, then Stowell's statement
would remain as true as if the attack was in August. Note also
the vague phrase "law enforcement authorities" rather than
specifying which agency was contacted, as if Stowell didn't
want anyone following up on the matter. In the May attack,
Stowell was very specific as to which agency the attack had
been reported to - the FBI Cyber Crimes division.
c) When called, people working for SCO either don't know why the
web site is down, or say it was down for an upgrade or
maintenance. I know, because I was one of the people who
called, and I documented the conversation at Groklaw
(http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/, about 2/3 down the page).
d) The recent outages generally start during non-business hours.
SCO possibly had a short DoS attack on Friday afternoon, but
there is no way it kept them down for 3 days; the utter
vagueness of their public announcements regarding it do not
lend confidence to the idea that they experienced any DoS
attack at all; their own employees have consistently told
callers that the site is/was down for maintenance; sites on
the same Center 7 network (canopy.com) were responding
without problems during the SCO outages; and even SCO's
public statements have confirmed that outages since the
weekend outage were for maintenance:
The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that
SCO was again the target of a DoS attack. However,
the outage was actually due to preventative
measures taken by SCO and its hosting service to
mitigate the effects of future attacks, according
to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki.
(http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1233231,00.a sp)
So, in short, I think that a) SCO didn't experience any DoS attacks, and b) that Centershift / Hafen has problems with their ISP and should get a new one rather than making statements to the press that their Internet problems are due to inadequately verified DoS attacks on SCO's webserver in Denver, hundreds of miles away from Centershift's Salt Lake City offices.
IBM collects virgin programmers and sacrifices them each year by throwing them into a volcano to appease the gods. If the gods look with favor upoin IBM's gifts, then they will win the suit against SCO.
Everyone knows this. Where you been, dude?