Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Stock Continues Downward Spiral

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the coming-in-for-a-nosedive dept.

186

tobiasly writes "TechNewsWorld reports that three and a half years after SCO saw its stock price increase tenfold to US$20.50 following the filing of its lawsuit against IBM, it closed Tuesday at US$2.28 per share, or two cents less than where it was before the lawsuit. This follows a sustained slide fed by poor earnings results and courthouse reversals which, according to OSDL CEO Stuart Cohen, shows that 'Linux and open source software are bigger than any one company. Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace.'"

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so where's the SEC investigation? (4, Interesting)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#15850941)

TechNewsWorld reports that three and a half years after SCO saw its stock price increase tenfold to US$20.50 following the filing of its lawsuit against IBM, it closed Tuesday at US$2.28 per share, or two cents less than where it was before the lawsuit.

Where's the SEC investigation of the SCO executives? At this point, there's plenty of evidence that this entire IBM lawsuit was a pump-and-dump scheme. What's the deal?

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (1)

bckrispi (725257) | about 8 years ago | (#15851025)

I haven't been paying attention to this case for the past, well, year. Did McBride or any execs cash out before it hit the bottom again? It should all be in the public SEC filings.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 8 years ago | (#15851082)

Darl isn't listed as a major holder, so either he sold out long ago (over two years), he owns stock indirectly through third parties, or he doesn't own enough to be listed as a major holder.

SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares. (5, Informative)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#15851155)

* Opinder Bawa has one filing for having sold 15,000 shares, and another for 8,000 shares. He would appear to have sold all the shares he possesses (but he still has a lot of options).

* Robert Bench has three filings: 7000 shares, 5000 shares, and 4100 shares.

* Jeff Hunsaker sold 5000 shares at the beginning of June.

* Darl McBride sold 7000 shares just after the suit was filed.


That's millions of dollars [lwn.net] in stock sales [boosman.com] . Given that the stock price skyrocketed when they announced the lawsuit, and the executive stock dumping began shortly thereafter, what do you make of this situation?

Clearly (4, Funny)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 8 years ago | (#15851476)

and the executive stock dumping began shortly thereafter, what do you make of this situation?
SCO executives are such nice people that they decided to share the wealth that would undoubtably follow from their brilliant lawsuit idea with lucky investors?

Re:SCO CEO McBride sold 7000 shares. (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 8 years ago | (#15851486)

That's millions of dollars in stock sales. Given that the stock price skyrocketed when they announced the lawsuit, and the executive stock dumping began shortly thereafter, what do you make of this situation?

me, nothing. I already wanted to hang McBride by the balls anyway :)
Seriously, people placed their money betting on SCO success in harming free software? well too bad for them. They actually helped SCO, so If they lose money I gloat in 32-bit color.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851046)

I don't think it was strictly pump-and-dump. SCO really thought it could make it selling fear licenses to companies using Linux. Some did cave unfortunately (like EV1).

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851079)

SCO is based in Utah. Utah is a Republican state. 'Nuff said.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851338)

There is so much stolen code in the linux kernel that even SCO is having a hard time recognizing their code in that mix-match.

If they can have just a bit more time, their stock is going to soare. It's a BUY. I recommend SCOX.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (4, Insightful)

asuffield (111848) | about 8 years ago | (#15851367)

The SEC operates extremely slowly. It could be years before they get around to doing anything.

Also, they're quite busy and tend to ignore companies that are either small or dying, on the basis that a dying company is a problem which will resolve itself if ignored, and they have more important things to do.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 8 years ago | (#15851471)

What a poor way for the SEC to handle such situations. The specific problem, if any, is with the management, not the relevant company -- the problem won't correct itself when management join another company after its death, and they may simply repeat the strategy, perhaps more ambitiously, since it paid off the last time... this could just bring down further other companies which were in dire straights before.

The management does their investors an extreme disservice, with their misguided efforts; surely they could come up with a better way of building a profitable business than relying off-chance that they might be able to kill Linux.

Surely a company should not invest its future in the outcome of a single lawsuit, if the evidence in the clear evidence available in their favor is lacking, and the theory of how they are likely to successfully argue their case, and whether the likely recovery of damages will outweigh the risk, are doubtful.

If the management cashed in their millions, perhaps the rest of the time actually pursuing the lawsuit is a thin veil, a farce, specifically and secretly designed to protect the perception of management's legitimacy to regulatory agencies, etc.

The lawsuit and arguments leading up to it may have been a staged thing, but they couldn't back down without admitting either an act of incompetence, OR an act of manipulating the market for SCO stock.

Until such time as the SCO management actually produce a credible case, and good solid evidence to back it up, it would seem they perpetuate a farce.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (1)

canter (43098) | about 8 years ago | (#15851883)

More important things like prosecuting Martha Stewart? You'd think they could find the time to prosecute the real criminals.

Re:so where's the SEC investigation? (2, Interesting)

Mathness (145187) | about 8 years ago | (#15851906)

At this point, there's plenty of evidence that this entire IBM lawsuit was a pump-and-dump scheme.
I will bite, where is that evidence then? All I see is people claiming it to be pump and dump.
Selling stock when it is sudden worth ten times as much (who wouldn't?) isn't evidence of pump and dump. Given the context it can of course be suspicious.
If you accuse without any proof, you will just be doing what SCO have done for so long.

The end is near... (2, Informative)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 8 years ago | (#15850944)

Not to pick on poor ole SCO (just kidding, let's pick on em) but it's worse than that...back on March 14, 2002, they did a reverse stock split, 1 for 4, because the stock was doing so poorly. So, in fact a share would only be 57 cents today if it were not for that reverse split.

A close of $2.28 means the stock has lost about 98% of it's value over the last 7 years.

Re:The end is near... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851203)

The reference price of $2.30 was in March *2003*, after the reverse split.

VA linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851394)

VA linux's share price is even more crap. rejoice slashdot!

Still have a long way to go (2, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | about 8 years ago | (#15850948)

I think they were at 60 cents before this all started.

Re:Still have a long way to go (2, Informative)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 8 years ago | (#15850998)

I believe you are correct. Lowest close was at $0.60 on June 26, 2002.

Re:Still have a long way to go (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 8 years ago | (#15851020)

However, I believe the $2.30 figure comes from the closing price on the day the lawsuit was officially filed. And it began it's stratospheric climb about two months later.

Re:Still have a long way to go (4, Informative)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | about 8 years ago | (#15851073)

They did a 1 for 4 reverse split in mid '02, which brought the price up to about 2.30.

Audiences say it best when they.... (0)

TheDarkener (198348) | about 8 years ago | (#15850949)

*clap clap clap clap*

The title should read... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 8 years ago | (#15850951)

...SCO executives continue to dump stock.

Re:The title should read... (2, Informative)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 8 years ago | (#15850973)

Actually, checking Yahoo, the last insider transaction was a non-public aquisition by Darcy Mott for 51,020 shares (for $3.92 per share, so it's lost almost half it's value). Nothing majorly going on with the stock, really, except Baystar Capital was dumping their's as fast as the SEC would allow at the end of 2004. Wonder how Baystar feels about their "investment" now?

Re:The title should read... (3, Informative)

killjoe (766577) | about 8 years ago | (#15851502)

Chances are baystar didn't lose a cent on the deal. First of all they had hedges, secondly they were merely a conduit for MS money. MS will make sure they get re-imbursed one way or another.

I misread that... (2, Funny)

jpardey (569633) | about 8 years ago | (#15851253)

...as SCO stock jumps the shark. Seems appropriate, but when?

bowl circler (2, Interesting)

hedley (8715) | about 8 years ago | (#15850954)

Looks ready to auger in. Nice profit for the shorts on this one. When would you cover this one? There may be residual value at some point (office space, chairs etc). 20.5->0.25 or so would be my guess of maximal profit.

Bring it on. I think they should rename themselves Icarus Operation

H.

Short that Shit! (2, Funny)

WinkingChicken (559148) | about 8 years ago | (#15851120)

Looks like a great investment opportunity. The US is a capilalist-democracy, where dollars vote. Cast your vote by shorting their stock. Make money and help rid the world of SCO in one shot...brilliant!

Re:Short that Shit! (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 8 years ago | (#15851511)

Heh.. good luck finding shares of SCO to borrow in order to short them, it might not be all that easy; SCO already seems to have about 20% short interest.

Shorting SCO would be extremely risky, even if you know for a fact that they fail... after all, their price could surge (temporarily) on news, like some new initiative, or getting a stay of execution (or other sort of time extension or minor positive development with respect to their lawsuit), causing a squeeze, or prompting some shorters to lock in their profits, ahead of further gains, for instance.

Also, they don't seem to be optionable....

Re:bowl circler (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851467)

"There may be residual value at some point"

Remember that IBM have counterclaims.

Re:bowl circler (2, Informative)

rfunches (800928) | about 8 years ago | (#15851665)

When would you cover this one? There may be residual value at some point (office space, chairs etc). 20.5->0.25 or so would be my guess of maximal profit.

Book value on SCOX (assets minus liabilities, a measure of how over/undervalued a stock is) is 67 cents per share (adjusted for split) for the quarter ending 4/30/06, or a little over $14 million. It probably won't fall below .67/share.

What I find funny is that according to WSJ, there is one analyst still covering the stock with a buy rating. However, the analyst has not given any forward earnings estimates. Also shocking is just how shorted the stock is: 3.8 million shares, of only 15.1 million shares available to investors (21.09 million shares total outstanding). 25% of SCOX's public float is being shorted! And, if that isn't enough, look at this 8-K SEC filing:

Effective as of July 1, 2006, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company"), provided a salary increase for Sandeep Gupta, Chief Technology Officer of the Company. Mr. Gupta's annualized base salary was increased from $150,000 to $165,000. In addition, a one-time bonus of approximately $2,400 was provided for Mr. Gupta.

I do not own SCOX or any of the companies involved in SCO litigation.

Obligatory Nelson Muntz quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15850970)

ha ha!

Net Worth (2, Interesting)

mlarios (212290) | about 8 years ago | (#15850981)

At this point, how much is the company even worth?

Re:Net Worth (1)

linuxhansl (764171) | about 8 years ago | (#15851065)

According to Yahoo, SCOX' market cap is 46.86 Mio.

I'm surprised a company that has no chance to sell anything ever again (after all who would buy anything from a company that is known to sue its customers) is still worth that much. In fact I'm surprised that SCO has any customers left at all.
And I sincerly hope that all the stock gamblers who bet on this frivilous lawsuit lost a shitload of money.

Re:Net Worth (3, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | about 8 years ago | (#15851115)

I'd say their only customers are those with existing SCO systems that have not been upgraded yet. It can be easier to just buy another SCO license than to migrate the entire thing. I'm sure nobody is actually doing all-new SCO installations anymore. Anyone with a current SCO system should definitely have a migration plan, because they will be stuck with an unsupported OS when SCO finally liquidates.

Re:Net Worth (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | about 8 years ago | (#15851398)

Yea your prob correct. I've seen SCO Unix out in the field, but they are all very very old installations

Re:Net Worth (4, Insightful)

Forge (2456) | about 8 years ago | (#15851517)

It's worse than that.

The major client my company has which still runs SCO uses it on a server that must be certified by Auditors at enormous cost (It's a bank). The setup they have now has been in place for around 8 years and at the time they got it it cost 1/10 it's closest competitor.

They have bought replacement software + hardware anyway and are now doing internal validation (before sheling out a few million to the Auditors).

Re:Net Worth (2, Informative)

benna (614220) | about 8 years ago | (#15851076)

The market cap (total market value of all the stock) is $46.82 million, but the enterprise value, which represents the company's price to an acquirer, is $28.20 million, as a result of the substantial (relatively speaking) amount of cash on the balance sheet.

Re:Net Worth (1)

mlarios (212290) | about 8 years ago | (#15851097)

Couldn't Red Hat or IBM just aquire SCO and drop the lawsuits? They could even make their "products" open-source.

Re:Net Worth (4, Informative)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | about 8 years ago | (#15851104)

A lot of people think this is what SCO wants. "Sue IBM and get lots of money when we're bought out!" IBM, apparently, does not think this is behavior it should encourage, and so it's simply attempting to squash SCO like a bug. I've got no problem with this.

Purchase == liability (5, Informative)

gvc (167165) | about 8 years ago | (#15851569)

If somebody were to purchase the company, they'd acquire its liabilities, too. Pending lawsuits with Novell, IBM, RedHat, AutoZone, as well as many more potential ones. These claims and counterclaims don't just "go away" if the company changes hands.

Liquidation is the only solution.

Not Fair (4, Funny)

tux_fairy (907230) | about 8 years ago | (#15850996)

Fuck You. I'm Darl Mc Bride. You can't do this to me. You suck! I don't like you. I'm gonna tell my mommy...

Re:Not Fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851204)

I'm Darl's mommy. I don't like Darl either.

Yay! (1, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | about 8 years ago | (#15851000)

Yay! Let's make biscuits!

(But seriously, as soon as RoyalBank/BayStar Capital pulled out, I think their funding prospects tanked - now they're just a silly waste of money to anyone who does the slightest bit of research before buying. And anyone who doesn't research an investment is risking a complete fleecing anyways, regardless of what company it is :))

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851494)

Gir? Is that you? Where's my soda? Bring me the moose, it is time!

Burn Baby Burn! (1)

BigCheese (47608) | about 8 years ago | (#15851057)

I just hope they don't go completely down the tubes before IBM's lawyers eat them alive.

Re:Burn Baby Burn! (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 8 years ago | (#15851093)

Hmmm...maybe IBM should invest in SCO so as to keep them afloat for a while?

Re:Burn Baby Burn! (0)

OverflowingBitBucket (464177) | about 8 years ago | (#15851129)

Hmmm...maybe IBM should invest in SCO so as to keep them afloat for a while?

Sounds like a good idea. Invest enough in SCO (though third parties, of course) to keep it alive long enough for IBM lawyers to slowly tear it to pieces. They wouldn't have to say a word after that. It would probably be the last frivolous lawsuit against them for a very long time.

Re:Burn Baby Burn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851224)

Yeah, buy stock of a company that is in shitty situation all over the courts so that you will lose not only money, but reputation just to make some kind of stupid example. Shooting your own leg, what a great idea. Your expertise is really amazing, please write a book about it so we'll be able to not read it.

Re:Burn Baby Burn! (1)

OverflowingBitBucket (464177) | about 8 years ago | (#15851339)

Pathetic troll, did you even read my post? I know four sentences is pretty heavy going, but the interesting content appears after the first sentence.

Venture investors (2, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | about 8 years ago | (#15851060)

The people who were probably (hopefully) the most likely investors in SCOX were likely to have been the kind of people who invest in venture funds -- and don't mind a 10-1 long shot as long as the likely profits are at least 15-1. SCO was one of those.... Not too likely to win, but if they did, they might win big.

Now their ods are waaaay to long for anybody's stomach, and probably the only thing keeping the stock out of the sub $1 market is the many short sellers who still have to cover their positions from time to time. -- I mean, who else in their right mind is going to buy SCO stock these days, other than an insider on orders from 'higher up'?

On the other news...makers of Phantom Game Console (1)

k2005quark (964230) | about 8 years ago | (#15851080)

to sue Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony for IP theft. More suits against other manufacturers will follow. Claims the industry leader in Fake Entertainment Systems, "we claim numerous patents for sections of code commonly used in Vaporware. It's impossible to assess damages at this time, but we believe it's in the trillions."

IBM could just buy them out (1)

benna (614220) | about 8 years ago | (#15851085)

Perhaps IBM should just buy them out at this point. They might even save on legal fees. SCO's enterprise value of $28.2 million pales in comparison to the $12.5 billion that IBM has in cash alone.

Re:IBM could just buy them out (4, Insightful)

MoonFog (586818) | about 8 years ago | (#15851140)

And reward the owners and leaders that got them into this mess? IBM should make sure they cannot get off their feet again, not back them up with money.

Re:IBM could just buy them out (1, Redundant)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 8 years ago | (#15851142)

Perhaps IBM doesn't want to reward SCO for its behavior?

Re:IBM could just buy them out (4, Insightful)

geoff lane (93738) | about 8 years ago | (#15851156)

No, at this point IBM is being accused of many things by TSG and clearly wants either the accusations to be thrown out by the court or a trial to clear their name.

Sometimes reputation has to be publically defended.

Of course, there is the alternative theory, IBM lawyers like to play with their lunch before eating it :-)

Re:IBM could just buy them out (4, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | about 8 years ago | (#15851167)

IBM cant buy any SCO stock. If they do, it looks like IBM is "giving in" (i.e. buying them out instead of fighting).

Plus, thats assuming that they could convince those who hold the levers at SCO to sell up (if the rumors are true and Microsoft etc are the ones who are really behind SCO and the lawsuit, they are going to want to keep fighting to do as much damage to linux as they can)

Re:IBM could just buy them out (1)

benna (614220) | about 8 years ago | (#15851258)

There shareholders would vote on it, and management wouldn't be able to convince anyone to vote no to any premium at all.

If IBM did buy SCO, they could have the pleasure of firing everyone there.

Re:IBM could just buy them out (1)

StupidKatz (467476) | about 8 years ago | (#15851387)

If IBM did buy SCO, they could have the pleasure of firing everyone there.

Except for the fact that the crooks behind this mess all have golden parachutes which would receive funding from such a buyout. Instead, IBM is not likely to pay one red cent for SCO, but merely crush them in court (as it is currently doing).

Re:IBM could just buy them out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851470)

No, IBM needs to start to push to put people in Jail, from accountants, lawyers, and execs who spent staff retirement funds, and the people who were 'in' on it, even to the point of delaying things.
If things are not destroyed, they can scan documents, and put SCO's old stuff online, so the online community can look for wrongs.

By doing so, all those lost IBM sales - because spineless govt. depts' put some 'not legal questionmark' excuse to trim their decisions, evaporate overnight.

If IBM finds some Skeletons in the closet, they can start picking off any helpers and financiers, and perhaps their backers. The press column inches will be the best advertising ever.

Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851108)

Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER.

Re:Marketplace? If you buy Linux you're a SUCKER (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851443)

Well here i was thinking i'd support Linux (a tiny little bit) by buying a set of CDs. Silly me.

Good To Know... (2, Funny)

nemmi (33230) | about 8 years ago | (#15851183)

Well well, it's good to know that their stock is finally neck-in-neck for value as my SCO admin certifications have been since I obtained them.

So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851230)

...now is a good time to BUY?!?!? You have just made me a very rich man.

Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (5, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | about 8 years ago | (#15851272)

"It shows that Linux and open source software are bigger than any one company. Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace. SCO . . . is dead."

I think the victory is bigger than just the downfall of SCO. This shows that any number of Closed Source companies, working in concert / collusion / tandem... have lost to one single man - Richard Stallman, and his GPL. It is the GPL which has tightened the noose around SCO, completely puncturing the SCO case, since they themselves were offering the 'infringing code' under the GPL. Linux and Linus Torvalds are merely incidental, given the magnitude of the victory we are seeing now... in fact, Linus was hardly involved in the case at all.

This is not just IBM vs SCO. Let's remember even IBM is not entirely behind Open Source, they have patents and interests in the Closed Source arena as well. In the ordinary world, if IBM wins vs SCO, they would control the entire Linux market, but because of the GPL, the entire Open Source community wins! In fact, this squarely places the spotlight on IBM now, specially since Lenovo is pre-loading Linux. Will IBM abandon their entire Closed Source strategy, and become the Google of the Services segment, in a truly Open Source way? Time will tell...

Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Sun, Oracle etc. are losing. Try hard they may, but they have failed to negatively affect the marketshare and mindshare of Open Source products and the philosophy behind it. The day is not far off when Apple and MS are quoted below $1. On that day, the victory will be complete.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851534)

RE:["Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Sun, Oracle etc. are losing"]

considerig the incredibly high prices they ask for their products i can understand why the US & world market looking towards GNU/GPLed (Linux) software...

Is this overrated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851565)

If so, why not reply with the reason why you think it's overrated?

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (5, Insightful)

zootm (850416) | about 8 years ago | (#15851579)

On an idealistic "free software" note: This is a battle for freedom, not against oppression. The objective is not to kill MS or Apple (that would benefit no-one), it's to get them to accept Free Software, and embrace and produce it themselves. When Free Software surpasses them and if they don't change, they will die, that's just the way it goes. But the idea behind Free Software is not to "kill" anyone, it's just to be better. A genuine victory would be for Free Software to just become "how it's done", and for market leaders to all embrace these techniques.

Victory is Free Software as the norm, not the killing of other companies. That's a hollow goal.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 8 years ago | (#15851619)

" This is a battle for freedom, not against oppression.....Victory is Free Software as the norm, not the killing of other companies . That's a hollow goal."

Hmmm.. very nice point, and very-well articulated as well. Thanks for re-orienting my perspectives a bit.

However, in the interim period before the goal of Free Software norm is achieved, don't you think the battle against oppression is a much more potent and tangible motivating force? Sayings like "The kite rises higher AGAINST the wind" and something like "In the run-up to the big victory in the Great War, some symbolic wins in smaller and lesser battles are important" come to mind.

The companies I mentioned in my original post have been tenacious in their efforts to practise and spread the gospel of the Closed Source world. Worse, they have deliberately abused their financial and market powers to denigrate the Free Software philosophy.

While the destruction of these entities, and their insidious philosophies would admittedly be a short-sighted and a hollow goal, it would indeed constitue a milestone in the larger goal of a Free Software world. Thoughts?

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (1)

zootm (850416) | about 8 years ago | (#15851634)

However, in the interim period before the goal of Free Software norm is achieved, don't you think the battle against oppression is a much more potent and tangible motivating force?

I just think it shifts the focus away from the merits of Free Software, and towards the shortfallings of other people. It also characterises Free Software as a fringe element, and a bitter one at that. I just don't think it's a useful goal.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 8 years ago | (#15851661)

It also characterises Free Software as a fringe element, and a bitter one at that.

I think it is important to understand the enormous Money and Muscle power that Closed source giants enjoy. Mere Free Software is useless if the hardware will not tolerate freedom - TiVO devices, and branded PCs from Dell, printers from HP, video cards from NVidia etc. being examples. Or if no one develops on top of Free Software (the Sun Java trap). Unless a few Big Name firms (and their dubious philosophies and business practices) are destroyed, what use is Free Software?

Probably explains why Stallman has not stopped after merely drafting GPL3, he's actively protesting against oppression as well.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (2, Insightful)

beheaderaswp (549877) | about 8 years ago | (#15851590)

While I'd not want to take *anything* away from the contributions of RMS, I don't think he deserves sainthood.

Stallman would not have, nor could have, fought this fight alone.

He is the person responsible for the idea. And it's a good idea.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 8 years ago | (#15851640)

While I'd not want to take *anything* away from the contributions of RMS, I don't think he deserves sainthood.

So many entities on either side of the Free / Closed philosophy... and that includes Microsoft and Linus Torvalds, have changed their stance / approach / press-releases / licensing models etc. Over the past 15 years and more, Stallman has been expounding his thoughts with consistency and prescience.

Considering he is a mere individual, this indeed seems REMARKABLE and certainly worthy of sainthood.

Re:Open Source bigger than Microsoft? Or just SCO? (2, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | about 8 years ago | (#15851740)

This shows that any number of Closed Source companies, working in concert / collusion / tandem... have lost to one single man - Richard Stallman, and his GPL.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Ben Franklin was solely responsible for the US victories in WWII.

Really, if we have to credit a single person for saving the universe, my nomination would go to PJ over on Groklaw. And I'm sure she'd be the first to say that she couldn't have done it alone.

All credit to Stallman for the GPL, for the foresight he showed, and for sticking to his guns over the years. But that doesn't mean we have to credit him as being solely responsible for every victory of open source movement.

Time is running out for SCO (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 8 years ago | (#15851284)

Time is running out for SCO. Check the scheduling order [groklaw.net] . We're past the stalling of pretrial discovery. We're past wondering if SCO has some surprise evidence. Discovery is over. Now things speed up. Expert reports are coming in now and end on September 22. On September 25, summary judgement motions start, and undoubtedly IBM will make some. Things can only get worse for SCO in the summary judgement phase, where some or all of SCO's case may be thrown out and IBM might win on some of their counterclaims. This whole thing could end in September.

If not, trial starts in February 2007.

Cohen talks bullshit (0, Troll)

DrSkwid (118965) | about 8 years ago | (#15851295)

> according to OSDL CEO Stuart Cohen, shows that 'Linux and open source software are bigger than any one company. Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace.'

utter crap, it shows that SCO had a terrible case and that the markets are about making money not deciding on merits of legal arguments.

Linux didn't win ANYTHING.

Re:Cohen talks bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851334)

"Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace."

Yeah, and Linux starts to sound like any companies' PR bullshit. What I need is "Linux is the best OS for my computer"! I couldn't care less about corporate crap such as lawsuits and marketshare...

I know that "Linux is the best OS for my computer" doesn't sound as fancy. But hey, *that* is what I need, so which user cares about marketshare ?

Re:Cohen talks bullshit (2, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#15851397)

know that "Linux is the best OS for my computer" doesn't sound as fancy. But hey, *that* is what I need, so which user cares about marketshare ?

This isn't about marketshare. The lawsuit is about one the things that makes Linux the best OS for your computer; it is resilient to attacks trying to take it away from you. SCO's declining stock value is due to public perception that SCO bet the farm on breaking that resilience; and lost.

KFG

Re:Cohen talks bullshit (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | about 8 years ago | (#15851514)

The attack wasn't even coherent. Nothing is proven.

There are already OSes that have withstood far more vigorous attackthan this one, they are the BSD family. The attack even precipitated Linux adoption !

Re:Cohen talks bullshit (1)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#15851530)

The attack wasn't even coherent.

I know. I've read their press releases.

KFG

Re:Cohen talks bullshit (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 years ago | (#15851600)

Linux didn't win ANYTHING.
Neither did SCO as a company - but Darl McBride and his brother who is pulling in HUGE fees on the legal team are doing very well financially out of this. SCO will be sucked dry and Darl will move on to his next victim - with the reputation of being a "hard hitter" that would have won if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their penguin. Expect to see him in the news again later on - and hopefully some jail time if people are paying more attention in a later scam.

Re:Cohen talks bullshit (1)

El Torico (732160) | about 8 years ago | (#15851696)

He's going to be Carly Fiorina's running mate.

Downward spiral? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851302)

"2 cents less than where it was before the lawsuit"

2 cents is considered a downward spiral? Now I understand why some think Linux has a chance :|

Re:Downward spiral? (1, Informative)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 8 years ago | (#15851769)

no the drop from $4.00 on june 30 to the current $2.22 is called a downward spiral and just a note for the peanut gallery the IBM strategy is to not only shoot TSCOG but make it so CSI Lindon needs HAZMAT Suits to examine the crime scene. the message writ large is "DO NOT TRY THIS ON PLANET EARTH WE ARE PROFESSIONALS"

and whats worse is some of the papers seem to be passing from IBM to Novell (and Vice Versa)

You hold em ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851928)

Reminds me of team meetings when we had a certain boss. The man was so vile, we'd argue in the back over who would hold him and who would hit him.

Can stock prices go negative? (4, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | about 8 years ago | (#15851390)

And if not, can they make an exception for SCO?

Re:Can stock prices go negative? (4, Informative)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | about 8 years ago | (#15851435)

In theory, the realistic minimum price for a stock is the point at which the stock is worth precisely the company's assets. A company with a net value of 20 million, with 1 million outstanding shares, would therefore have an absolute minimum price of $20/share. (This isn't actually true, but if your stockholders believe your company is worth less than its asset price, perhaps it really is time to just break the company up for scrap.)

I suppose, if a company's assets were negative - if the company was in major debt - and there was some way to force the shareholders of the company to pay the owed money, then yes, indeed, the stock could and likely would go negative.

Possibly unfortunately, though, there's no way that can happen - although I personally would be vastly amused if all the SCO stockholders were forced to pay IBM for owning part of such a doomed company, I suppose it would open up an incredible number of legal problems :)

Re:Can stock prices go negative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851528)

Many people have bought two dollars for a dollar. This is relatively normal when people buy up large firms with a lot of problems. Few people is intressted to have a go at their problems and they don`t want to clean up the mess before split up either.

Heres something to help SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851423)

"Looking for extra income? Need a recurring revenue stream to support your organization? Then the Me Inc. Sales Agent Program is for you."

Available on SCOs EdgeClickPark website
http://www.edgeclickpark.com/solutions/SalesAgentP rogram.html [edgeclickpark.com]

Like they say, "The sooner you get started, the more lucrative this program is."

The last bit is bullshit (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851526)

Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace.

Linux has not won in the courts. IBM is doing well against SCO - but it isn't over till it's over, and the lawsuit could go on for another year, at least. Trial is currently scheduled for 2007.

Linux is not winning in the marketplace. Microsoft is winning in the marketplace, it has about 10 times as big a market share as Linux, last time I looked.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm a big Linux fan, and I'm posting this from my Debian Etch system, which is connected to the Internet thru my Debian Sarge firewall. But you don't win by deluding yourself that the enemy has lost, when in fact it is very far from losing.

Analyst's comment missing (4, Interesting)

Laura_DilDio (874259) | about 8 years ago | (#15851547)

Where's the Yankee Group? Where's the fathead Laura DiDio? She's been the official SCO Fan-girl from the start. I guess monkey-boy Ballmer didn't command her to make any comments at this time.

Another Math-Impaired Reporter (0, Redundant)

Dean Edmonds (189342) | about 8 years ago | (#15851618)

If the stock went from 2.30 to 20.50, that's a little under a ninefold increase, not ten.

Re:Another Math-Impaired Reporter (1)

Morky (577776) | about 8 years ago | (#15851713)

Ninefold, definitely ninefold. Wopner's at six. I'm an excellent driver.

IBM is winning (3, Insightful)

Koyaanisqatsi (581196) | about 8 years ago | (#15851653)

Don't forget that's IBM that is winning, linux is hitching a ride here.

If this was happening to a smaller company, maybe it wouldn't have the funds to defend itself and would be gone bankrupt by now.

The threat is still strong.

I would have tagged it "haha"... (0, Redundant)

w4rl5ck (531459) | about 8 years ago | (#15851663)

if it had not already been.

So there's justice even in the worldwide financial market.

SCO could have done well. (2, Insightful)

Morky (577776) | about 8 years ago | (#15851667)

SCO was a strong company back when they had the only commercial UNIX on Intel. They had a big presence in small companies, support from hardware vendors, and good customer service. If they would have just embraced Linux instead of seeing it as a threat, they could have been the major player in Linux for business. They just had really bad, shortsighted leadership.

Baseless (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | about 8 years ago | (#15851668)

It is no sign of strength to beat a company which casts baseless claims. The only thing which surprises me is that the stock market took it serious. It was very obvious to everyone that it was fraud from the very beginning. So perhaps the market is not that perfect as some make you believe.

The extraordinary amount of communication issued to the press during the anti-Linux SCO case should have alerted a real investor about the nature of these claims. Now, I wonder whether US criminal prosecutors will take the required measures against those SCO manager who are responsible.

Last Trade: 2.22 Aug 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15851765)

Man this is a prime example of why you should not sue your customer base.
Win or lose they will still lose!

Who tagged this "haha"? (2, Insightful)

roystgnr (4015) | about 8 years ago | (#15851806)

It's too late for that. The "dump" phase of this pump-and-dump scam may be over, but the crooks responsible have already made millions of dollars through SCOX stock sales. The investors losing money now aren't the executives responsible for a bunch of crooked lawsuits, they're the suckers who fell for the "our copyrights are being violated!" talk.

Unless there's an SEC investigation, it doesn't matter that some corporate entity called The SCO Group will go down in flames - the people who caused it all made out like bandits.

A big company crushing a smaller one... (-1, Troll)

abigsmurf (919188) | about 8 years ago | (#15851880)

A smaller company sues a larger one. The larger company spends so much on lawyers that it drains the resources of the smaller company, crippling the company until they can't fight any more.

If you take away the open source aspect of things, this is just a standard case of 'justice' where the company with the most resources wins. Regardless of the validity of the arguments put forward in the case, if microsoft had done something like this, people would be screaming bloody murder.

Re:A big company crushing a smaller one... (4, Insightful)

KokorHekkus (986906) | about 8 years ago | (#15851961)

A smaller company sues a larger one. The larger company spends so much on lawyers that it drains the resources of the smaller company, crippling the company until they can't fight any more

Except that in THIS case it's the smaller company that's been dragging it's feet at EVERY step of the way. So IBM hasn't done "something like this".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>