Royal Bank of Canada Cashes Out of SCO; SCO Begins Layoffs 585
jbell99999 is the first one to submit news that the Royal Bank of Canada is divesting itself of SCO stock. They're selling part of their preferred stock to Baystar, which has already indicated that they want to redeem their shares, and converting the rest to regular stock, which they can presumably sell on the open market. In other SCO news, Versicherung writes "The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting, SCO is laying off 10 percent of its worldwide workforce. The cuts come less than a month after the company brought on a new chief financial officer and just before the company ended its second fiscal quarter April 30." See also stories at Eweek and Linuxinsider.com.
Oblig. Simpsons Quote (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, The Simpsons reference is valid (Score:5, Funny)
BayStar webmaster think strategy's upside down. (Score:5, Funny)
Wonder if their webmaster's making fun of them. In addition the funny image, of course netcraft confirms baystar's running BSD [netcraft.com]. Does that mean they're dead?
Not HaHa! - This may be a very bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then we have Baystar (the Microsoft puppet) effectively inheriting all of the IP claims (by proxy, but the result is the same), which they think are meritorious. This could result in a whole new round of litigation run by someone who's not a complete jackass.
The new litigation may (will)also be a complete pile of bullshit, but it still ties things up in the courts for years. Be afraid, very afraid.
You're perceptive, however (Score:5, Insightful)
Best case scenario is (a) Novell does in fact show that it owns SYS V (because all claims against Unix would be gone because Novell has released GPL code (b) IBM wins the suit and owns the remaining SCO assets (c) Daryl freaks and essentially closes the company (d) Baystar is left holding the bag (e) some DA grows a set and starts an investigation and indicts a lot of people
You've got to admit, that would be justice in every quarter. Complete win for Linux.
Even Better... (Score:5, Funny)
War was beginning
Darl: What happen?
Blake: Somebody set up us the DDOS.
Mark: We get signal.
Darl: What!
Blake: Main screen turn on.
Darl: It's You!!
Linus: How are you gentlemen!!
Linus: All your IP are belong to us.
Linus: You are on the way to destruction.
Darl: What you say!!
Linus: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Linus: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Darl: Take off every 'IP claim'!!
Blake: You know what you doing.
Darl: Move 'IP claim'.
Darl: For great injustice.
Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:4, Funny)
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Quite appropriate, don't you think?
Reminds me of Apocalypse now... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:5, Funny)
Linux looks ugly when you're alone
IBM seems wicked when you've just sued them
Wall Street is uneven when your stock is down
When you're Darl
Lawyers come out of the rain
When you're Darl
No one won't curse your name
When you're Darl
When you're Darl
When you're Darl
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:5, Funny)
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Torvalds is a thief and a liar
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire
The time to litigate is through
No time to wallow in the mire
Try now we can only lose
And our company become a funeral pyre
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire, yeah
The time to litigate is through
No time to wallow in the mire
Try now we can only lose
And our company become a funeral pyre
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire, yeah
You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Girl, our lawyers couldn't get much higher
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Gotta stop Linux or I'm fired
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Try to set the source on fire
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll catch hell and lose all my karma for this but perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to cheer this on. Darl is an evil bastard but I feel bad for the people who have the misfortune of working there (and who might not have anywhere else to go -- the economy sucks) that are about to get pink slips because of his ill-advised legal battle against IBM.
I doubt you'd be so quick to cheer if a member of your family worked for them -- or if you owned stock and have been watching Carl & Co. run it into ground.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:3, Informative)
You make it sound so easy. Regardless of how much ones job may suck, finding another one is rarely easy these days. By your statement, I do not think you have much experience in the real world as what you said is far easier said then done.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were an employee there I would have been looking for a new job for months and months and months... Not because I hate SCO but because I would consider the job to be too unstable. If they couldn't have the foresight to do the same... screw em.
"Screw 'em"? Nice attitude. What if they have been looking and can't find another job? And my comment gets modded down? Geesh!
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like how you might feek bad for telemarketers (the employees), but were happy when the do - not - call list went into effect.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it's fun to make extreme statements, but a little compassion ( or at least empathy) might be in order here.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:4, Insightful)
The original poster didn't say they want to be annoying, he said that they are deliberately pissing people off. And for that, they deserve all of the verbal abuse that they get. If they're going to assist in lowering people's quality of life, they shouldn't expect any better in return.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, it has nasty repercussions for the folks in the SCO cube-farm, but what kind of legal seal-bashing would be encouraged by letting SCO get away with this? If they got away with it this time, some other C?O with an ichy palm would think that these kinds of anti-FOSS/GPL antics were a neat way to mint money. Can you imagine the digital landscape in 2-5 years if we let Darl cart away the cash because big-bully-bill set him up to take cheap shots at the penguins?
Perhaps BayStar will be a little bit more thorough in vetting the business plans of the companies they invest in? Maybe people will stop trying to rewrite/reinterpret their old contracts to get a better footing for creativity killing lawsuits? Maybe companies will return to the good old days of creating and selling products that consumers want and are willing to pay for, not just threatening people with lawsuits from ToonTown, UT.
Yes, our fellow techies are losing their jobs, but did you ever cry over Vader's poor unknowning Stormtrooper henchmen as they ate blaster-fire like the faceless minions they are? C'mon, if you're an employee of a company pulling antics like SCO, then you should either get your CV in order and start seriously looking for employment elsewhere or just lie down like a dog and get the whuppin' that's likely to come down the tracks.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is doomed with or without Darl. The sooner this ends the better. Think of all the resources this is wasting in companies like, IBM, Novell, DaimlerChrysler, Autozone, SGI, Redhat, etc. That could be much more profitably put towards new products, R&D, etc. How many new jobs might be created, instead of wasted on these legal struggles?
And whil
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:4, Insightful)
The economy most certainly does not suck. These are not the dot com days, but that was fantasy land anyway and best not returned to (it will only cause another crash). Non-farm payrolls today were excellent, the unemployment remains at 5.7% (low), interest rates are low and rises over the next two years will be gradual and low in historical terms. The household balance sheet is robust, consumer spending reasonable and corporate investment good. Successful global trade has the benefit of keeping prices of goods and services down allowing income to be spent on even more.
The economy most certainly does not suck.
Besides, a company losing 10% of its ~270 employees is less than the local fast food store going out of business... at least the employees of the local fast food joint had more belief in what they were doing - any SCO employee with ethics would have got out far sooner.
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:3, Informative)
So the moral of this story.... (Score:5, Funny)
Bre-X (Score:5, Funny)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Bre-X (Score:5, Interesting)
Although it starts amongst joyous meadows and cheerful flowers, truly great evil this path leads to. Evil bearing names like Abu Gharib and My Lai.
So just note that it was Royal Bank who against all common sense invested in SCO in the first place. They are just now growing cold feet and preparing to run for the door.
Re:Bre-X (Score:4, Funny)
unfortunately, we can't spell for shit.
Re:Bre-X (Score:5, Funny)
At least we can do that in more than one language!
Re:So the moral of this story.... (Score:5, Funny)
Canadian investment in SCO - 30 million
American investment in SCO - 20 million
Canadian Population ~ 30 million
American Population ~ 300 million
So on a per capita basis Canadians are 15 times more responsible for the SCO mess
Where have you been? (Score:5, Informative)
In Santa Cruz, for example, they sliced their tech staff by like 80% or something.
Re:Where have you been? (Score:5, Funny)
"Source: The SCO Group"
That's why it began with: "The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions and the owner of the UNIX operating system,....
I almost choked when I read the first line.
Re:Where have you been? (Score:5, Funny)
How will this affect the release schedule for the next minor versions of the Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? I've been anticipating Linux 2.6 settling down a bit before I switch and this news of SCO reducing it's tech staff by such a huge amount causes me to question investing so much of my time and energy into upgrading.
If SCO ceases to exist, will Linux still be available!? Will they open source the code so that a group of volunteers can saddle up and take the reins from this dedicated staff of SCO developers who have put so much time and effort into making Linux the great operating system that it is? Inquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions damnit.
Re:Where have you been? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year, in June, but I think even up until October, SCO claimed to have 330 employees.
When the recent layoffs were announced, they said they were laying off "way less than ten percent" of their 275 employees.
275? I thought they had 330?
Since SCO currently has 275 employees, the "way under ten percent" must mean they are laying off 27 people, which would be 9.81%.
This leaves them with 248. This means they have lost 82 people (330 - 248) or 24.84% ("way under 25%" using SCO speak) of their workforce in less than a year. Perhaps even in just six months.
Now since SCO didn't have layoffs until now, how do you suppose they dropped from 330 to 275 employees in the meantime? (I won't say anything about rats and sinking ships.)
Now why do I just bindly assume in SCO speak that "way under 10 percent" actually means 9.81%? Because if it were under nine percent, they would have said "way under nine percent!". So instead of laying off 27, they could have laid off 26 (9.45%) or laid off 5 (9.09%), in which case my above quackulations would need adjustment.
who? (Score:3, Funny)
10%? (Score:4, Funny)
--------
Free mobile porn [steamymobile.com]
Re:10%? (Score:5, Funny)
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
10 Percent of their workforce! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:10 Percent of their workforce! (Score:3, Funny)
I think their workforce USED to be 90% attorneys.
With 100% attorneys, they're a prime example of the new breed of IT company. The IT industry used to be heavy on the technical side, but the new trend is to be heavy on the (protection of) information side.
(the above is meant to be funny)
Smilin' like the Enzyte Guy (Score:4, Funny)
Intellectual Property Claims? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, which intellectual property claims were those?
Does Baystar believe their claims of their source code in Linux are meritable?
Re:Intellectual Property Claims? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, it would be SMARTER never to have had the stocks in the first place...
No, it goes like this. (Score:4, Insightful)
But, you say, they'll lose all their money if they lose!
That's not true either. Baystar can invest another X in Linux companies, which, if SCO wins will see their stock rise by, suppose, Y%. As long as X * Y > X + 80 million, Baystar will make a profit. And, if SCO wins, they make an emense profit.
$80 million? It was $20M before today (Score:5, Insightful)
Baystar has what, $80 million in SCO?
What? The original Baystar/RBC investment was $50 million combined, of which, Baystar's part was $20 million. RBC picked up the other $30 million. Today, RBC converted one-third of its investment into SCOX common stock. The remaining two-thirds was sold to Baystar for an undisclosed sum of money, but you can bet it's a helluvalot less than the original $20 million Baystar spent for the same quantity of Series A-1 shares in October.
To be blunt, RBC took it in the shorts on this investment. Baystar screwed them hard. Baystar hooked RBC up with the original PIPE, and then turned around and flushed the value down the toilet with their notice to SCO that they intended to get their money back. They didn't give any indication to RBC about the grounds they were using to justify their demand for the return of capital, so RBC had to stand by and watch their own deadline for making a similar demand expire.
Once that deadline passed, Baystar effectively had first-dibs on picking over SCO's carcass in an ensuing fight. RBC would have to wait until after Baystar got its money back (even though Baystar's investment was smaller) before making any attempt to recover its own investment. This forced RBC's hand. They could sit around and watch their entire $30 million get flushed down the drain, or they could sell (at a loss) most of their investment to Baystar and convert the rest to common stock (at a price that's nearly 2.5x the market price for those common stock shares) in the hopes that they'll get something if SCO wins the lottery.
Unless RBC never expected to make money on this deal for some obscure tax benefit, they got hosed badly. I'd expect to see the idiot at RBC who signed off on this deal resigning very soon to "pursue other opportunities."
Baystar, meanwhile, doubles their position in SCO's Series A-1 convertible preferred stock for a sum that's almost certainly a lot less than the $20 million they paid for the other 20,000 shares, thus reducing their average share price and giving them an ironclad fist around SCO's throat.
Baystar's not as stupid as we originally thought. RBC, meanwhile, comes off looking much stupider than we originally thought.
I again refer you to my post dt. July 02 (Score:5, Insightful)
or just the quote below...
Differently seen companies chasing their tails in copyright infringments, trade protocol violations and intellectual property rights are generally the ones which are going to fall pretty soon.
Short on cash and not being able to earn/fund the millions they were used to in the dotgone era they are metamorphosing into scavengers and opportunists
SCO is a shining example The crummy economy is bringing out the best in a lot of Companys, their legal team thinks, "we are getting irrelevant (as a team) , lets think up something to make some money and make sure we dont' get laid off," "hmmm... patent # 5551212 seems to be worth looking into" and there starts their Road to Hell [lyricsdepot.com] [lyricsdepot.com]
Easy money (or so they think)
the legal team is now the marketing team
Re:I again refer you to my post dt. July 02 (Score:4, Interesting)
Litiguous bastards:
1. Don't need customers, just people to sue.
2. Don't need to keep good customer relations, just to maintain enough paperwork to sue (former) customers.
3. Don't need to support a product.
4. Don't need to develop a product.
5. Don't need extensive infrastructure. Or an office for that matter, just a desk in a law firm. (Or, take the Simpson's Approach: "Hey, you, get out of my office!" - Lionel Hutts to Homer Simpson, lying in a tipped-over phone booth)
6. Don't need a lot of capital, just enough to keep the lawyers going until the 'big payoff' comes in the form of a win/settlement.
Basically, it flies in the face of almost every rule in the business book. You get to make money without doing anything productive towards the economy (no job creation, no product in use, no VALUE). And, of course, this is why litigious bastards MUST fail. We can't get people believing that the world can run off of bullshit and hot air. If you make money, you should make money by DOING something, at least in the bigger picture.
Even other companies that make money from 'IP' (say, music or software) puts out something for people to use/consume/enjoy/work on. Litiguous bastards don't contribute to the economic equation, they try to rob it, try to leech it dry.
SCO must be ground into the dust, same as RAMBUS.
Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:5, Informative)
So, for every person betting it is going to go up, there is someone betting it will go down.
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, for this to happen, the stock price would actually have to go *up* first...
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from that, it seems that the only reason that people are still holding SCOX is to get some more money out of whoever has been manipulating the stock price for the past year. That's the only explanation I can see for SCOX not being the penny stock it was (and will be again).
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:4, Insightful)
And as ~46% of the stock is held by insiders, it tells me that a whopping 92% of shareholders who aren't insiders think it's gonna go down.
Thems not good numbers.
Investment advice please (Score:3, Interesting)
If RBC places an order sell these freaking shares at any price, as fast as you can!!! for a volume of 740,740 shares...
would this potentially affect the stock price?
in what way might the price be affected?
what effect, if any, might this have on the long term outlook of the company?
are there any other concerns a wise investor should have?
Any good investing tips appreciated. (Especially when they are from an internet site! rather than from someone quali
What do you bet... (Score:4, Funny)
Lay-offs abroad? (Score:4, Funny)
I guess they are laying of lawyers in Germany then?
Layoffs are not nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends what they're doing (Score:3, Insightful)
Such lawyers destroy, people employed by Linux companies create, and generate real economical value.
Re:Layoffs are not nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually SCO systems were used in some tanks. There were stories going around about patches etc being downloaded in the field in the early 90's.
That's probably this one [ncl.ac.uk]. Way back in REM-time, with BBS's still going strong.
The control system for the cabin of the Boeing 777 also used to run on UnixWare.
Not anymore [lynuxworks.com]; but I never really understood what a browser has to do with an operating system.
It's not over yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
stock price (Score:5, Interesting)
Today it was 64,035. That's about the equivalent of 2 day-traders flipping the stock back and forth.
What does that mean? Nobody is interested in buying or selling this thing.
Re:stock price (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, I'll bet lots of people are interested in selling it, but they can't get their price for it...
Oblig. Star Wars reference (Score:5, Funny)
".. We've analysed their attack sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?"
3C
Re:Oblig. Star Wars reference (Score:4, Funny)
I know some of these people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regards,
John, human
Re:I know some of these people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know some of these people ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I know some of these people ... (Score:3, Insightful)
April employment stats released this morning reveal 625K new nonfarm jobs [yahoo.com] the last two months.
And with unemployment currently at 5.6% [bls.gov], that's lower than it's been the last 30 years, [bls.gov] excluding the dot-com bubble 1996-2001. (You'd be hard-pressed to find an economist who would indicate that unemployment of 4.2%, as we had in 1999, is good for the economy, much less sustainable.
If your friend can't find a job, perhaps he needs to switch location, career, or both. It's quite possible
Re:I know some of these people ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I know some of these people ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory TMBG Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I know some of these people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Santa Cruz, and know some of these people who were laid off recently. I don't like what SCO is doing, either
Regards,
John, human
It can be a terrible thing for someone to lose their job, especially given that they probably were in ideal positions before Darl came along. But honestly, these folks shouldn't be at all surprised that they are being laid off. The writing has been on the wall for about nine months now, and for the last six or so it should have been blatantly obvious that anyone who doesn't add value to the litigation should not even count on a short term future with SCO.
I feel bad for these folks because the management decided to wreck their company, but that happened last year.
Heh.. Play with fire.. Get burned (Score:3, Informative)
SCO Imitates Art (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO Imitates Art (Score:5, Funny)
I can't help feeling... (Score:5, Funny)
Bert Young (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bert Young (Score:5, Informative)
To get more customers (Score:5, Funny)
2. Then start selling an actual product.
3. Profit.
I can't wait to see how Laura Didio spins this one as a plus for SCO.
Investment Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
- Have a product
- that is involved in sales
- to customers
- generating revenue
SCO seems to have none of these things.10% is nothing... (Score:5, Informative)
From SCO.com:
Q. How many people does The SCO Group employ? A. As of April 30, 2003, 339 employees.
From the article:
Stowell said the cuts totaled less than 10 percent of the company's total worldwide work force of 275. There were cuts, however, earlier in the quarter as well. In March the company reported 305 employees, including 73 in Santa Cruz.
339 - 275 = 64 positions gone from April 2003 to May 2004, not including these layoffs. Jeez.
Martyrdom (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Re:Martyrdom (Score:5, Insightful)
He's been saying pretty much that for a while now. Called Linux users terrorists because he got hatemail for being a moron (well, he had more "justification" than that, but what I just said is pretty much what it boiled down to in the end...) I think they're his favorite scapegoats because they often point out how dumb he is, and that threatens his livelihood of writing BS articles...
In case you're wondering, why yes, I did spend quite a while researching him to see what his connections to SCO were after he started writing some of this nonsense. My conclusion was that he's not being paid by anyone, he's just a contrarian type who liked generating some controversy, because people calling him stupid reinforces for him the idea that he's smarter than them all, having "seen through" whatever "popular misconception" he's writing about today.
The best strategy for refuting him is to stick to points of provable, technical error (e.g. those points which do not depend on oppinion at all, however well-founded that oppinion might be) and politely call him on them. Preferably every single time he makes those mistakes (and trust me, there are plenty...). In doing so, CC whoever he's writing for (since he does guest columns and such, mostly), and chide him for not doing better fact-checking.
In other words, avoid any sort of ad hominem, and stick to the facts. Enough of that might get publications to reconsider his role as an "analyst"
I should hope NOT (Score:4, Interesting)
It shouldn't be difficult to counter the spin when the facts are on your side.
Time to head for the liquor store... (Score:3)
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Gotta Love Layoff Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Q. Your the captain of a ship commanding 100 sailors. Your carrying valuable cargo you need to sell for the owner of the ship. It appears there is a hole in your ship and water is coming in fast. What's do you do?
A. Find out what's wrong and fix it
B. Tell the sailors to start bailing water and sing something happy while they do it
C. Start looking around for at the other ships pilot since this once hasn't got long
D. Move the Cargo to your personal dingy and set sail
E. Tell everyone "This is not happening, everything is normal, the ship cannot be sinking, we take precautions, you know" and remain calm. (Erik the Viking)
F. Start throwing sailors into the sea until to lighten the load?
A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
[usual disclaimers here; I'm a layperson who has to deal with issues related to things like this occasionally]
The difference between a real company and an intellectual property holding company is that a real company has some skin in the game when it comes to treating patents as trading cards. An IP holding company doesn't.
As a simple example, consider two companies, "A" and "B", with a patent portfolio of 100 patents each, and real products that they are trying to sell.
When company A says to company B "you're infringing patent A17", B can use its portfolio defensively, and come back with "yes, but you're infringing patent B34; let's trade licenses".
If company A is an IP holding company, there's nothing company B can do but pay whatever extortionate price: Company A has no product, and is therefore not infringing any of B's IP. B is pretty much hanging in the wind.
The only place this isn't true is where B has some IP that A acknowledges is the basis of derivative IP held by A, _and_ A values the ability to continue sublicensing it without B raising sublicense fees for the original work in response to the extortion suit.
IF SCO is, effectively shedding their vulnerable assets, and IF they really have IP assets, this could be an entrenchment where it could end up being very hard to dig them out for a very long time.
The only real recourse to this sort of business model is for company B to attack companies that are infringing B's portfolio, and which are owned by the same people who own company A - effectively countering extortion with blackmail.
Yeah, I'm one of those people who think we need intellectual property law reform.
-- Terry
Re:A bad thing? (Score:4, Funny)
If the amount on line C is non-zero and greater than the amount on line B subtract the amount on line A from line D and write on line E.
Final request (Score:4, Funny)
All I can say is... (Score:3, Informative)
...ouch... [yahoo.com]
Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. (Score:5, Informative)
The prevailing presumption is that they sold the 2/3 at a loss and will strategically dump the common stock. Keeping the common stock after a move like this wouldn't seem to make sense, but there is probably more going on than any of us know.
So they divested 2/3 of their stock for unknown terms, lost some benefits of the PIPE deal and are holding 1/3 of their original investment at >50% loss over 7 months. They presumably had the option to force redemption like Baystar, and being the majority investor would get their slice of the pie first. Instead they wait to weeks and pull this. Sounds like they're cutting their losses and splitting to me.
But admittedly that's not certain yet.
My best guess is that RBC prefered cutting losses and dropping SCOX rather than fighting about redemption, while Baystar has committed to redemption or bullying, and doubling their stock holdings for presumably a nice discount increases their leverage against SCO management and increases their redemption penalty should they win.
RBC folded, Baystar raised, and SCO is "all in".
Selling to Baystar? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Selling to Baystar? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Risk vs Reward (Score:4, Funny)
Stock goes up => Big Bonus
Stock goes down => We get your liver
What if....... (Score:5, Interesting)
My impression of SCO was it was the product you bought 10 years ago because that power accounting and database software was written for it, dated but does the job and has never rarely failed. Near as I'm aware, they had a somewhat stable customer base, and while they didn't inovate, they started to incorperate much in the way of OSS in order to keep up with the pack, and perhaps actually get some new customers. Selling them old old and true power apps, but save them lots of money by giving them Samba.
I am curious about one thing. What if SCO never fired the first shot in this IP war? Would they still need to downsize? Would they still be considered a dying company? Would it be possible for SCO to continue to exist supplying to main stream folk or would they have simply continued to fade away? After all a successful company isn't always the one with the most money, but one which has found a balance between supply and demand, much easier with a software company then one which produces a physical product.
Excellent, they're losing a fortune on the deal (Score:5, Interesting)
As for Baystar trying to get blood out of the stone they helped forge, same story, let's hope they never recoup their cash. Maybe it'll be a lesson to the next bunch of greedy S.O.B.s who think about funding the next group of crooks to come along.
IP (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be poignant, but at least if I were to murder someone and the news media were reporting on it they would say "...an alleged murderer"... Why can't they say "alleged intellectual property rights" as SCO hasn't proved anything yet and there is still doubt here.
----
SCO... An alleged company with an alleged business plan.
SCOX support level at 6? (Score:4, Interesting)
SCOX closed at 6.01 on Thursday and 5.99 on Friday. That does look like an effort to maintain the price.
This only works until SCO runs out of cash, of course.
Wait till Monday (Score:4, Interesting)
My friend (the evil capitalist) has said that this has always been a race between winning the legal cases, and the stock hitting the magic $4.50 share price when the market figired out the scam. At $4.50, there would likely be a removal of The Darl and his cronies and a cancellation of all court cases and a demand for a new CEO to turn SCO around by INNOVATING instead of LITIGATING. I am watching to see if he's right. See you Monday!
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid RBC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yesssss (Score:3, Interesting)
As one investor is changing non-voting for voting stocks, and the other (Baystar is related to MS) proclaiming that SCO is not experienced to deal these legal situations (and buying first ones stocks).
In my opinion Baystar;)MS is aiming to prolong this situation as long as possible, and thus buying shares from RBC.
There might be the change, but probably only about who is leading this fiasco.
But to be truthfull, I really don't understand why they prolong this. There was no benefit and Linux