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!

Investors Bailing On SCO Stock, SCOX Plummets

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the is-it-wetter-underwater-than-when-it-rains dept.

Caldera 368

HailDorothy writes "SCO's stock price is plummeting in the aftermath of Judge Kimball's ruling that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights, as we discussed earlier. '[W]e will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said in a public statement issued in a futile attempt to calm investors. SCO's stock price has fallen 70 percent during trading today, reaching a 52-week low. It looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program. As Judge Kimbell noted in his ruling, it's unlikely that Novell will ever be able to collect on those royalties."

cancel ×

368 comments

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

Woohoo (4, Funny)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217123)

*opens champagne*

Re:Woohoo (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217507)

The amazing thing is that having been found liable for slandering Novell's title, they're still doing it.

http://www.sco.com/company/profile.html [sco.com]

"SCO owns the core UNIX operating system"

Uh, no. How long do they get to keep saying things like this before they're up for contempt of court too?

Re:Woohoo (1)

LithiumX (717017) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217661)

People who invested in this stock dug their own grave.

Considering that their case seemed built on promises of evidence to come (did they EVER produce Document X?), I don't see why any intelligent investor would have gambled on them.

Re:Woohoo (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217689)

Except those who are now selling short. They're probably dancing a little jig right now.

Re:Woohoo (1)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217719)

Nah... *cracks open a beer and starts hacking*

Victory! (4, Funny)

beheaderaswp (549877) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217125)

Ah the sweet smell of victory!

Now bring on Microsoft!

Wait... um....

Damn... this ain't gonna be so easy.

Where's the Tylenol?

Re:Victory! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217371)

victory? smells more like crotch cheese and taco bell farts.

Darl? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217131)

When are we going to get to see Darl McBride's head on the end of a stick? Or is that asshat not going to be accountable?

Re:Darl? (3, Interesting)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217333)

I have been thinking about that.

He made a lot of statements that could be taken as fraud. I wonder maybe IBM could send a package over the the SEC or the Justice Department...

It is a corp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217401)

They have had major financial backing from Sun and MS. In addition, the feds have pretty much ignored them. Why do you think that they will be held accountable?

They were a corp... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217473)

...now they are a corpse.

Here's the proof. [yahoo.com]

Re:They were a corp... (4, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217621)

You mean a scorpse? scorpsicle?

Re:It is a corp (2, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217633)

Why do you think that they will be held accountable?
Because now that major financial backing has to be paid through to Novell, and people want a ROI. It is now painfully obvious (due to where the money was going vs. where it goes now) that something wasn't quite right with SCO.

Of course, they still might not be held accountable due to the fact that their mismanagement will result in bankruptcy and disollution of the company before anyone can actually pin anything on the company. Mr. McBride might be in serious trouble, however.

Re:Darl? (-1, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217435)

What sort of punishment would be appropriate here? The crime was apparently filing a lawsuit that didn't pan out.

Of course, you reasonable open source loving freedom espousing nerds only like to apply your ideals under your own conditions. Heaven forbid you act like human beings every now and again

Re:Darl? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217637)

The crime was apparently filing a lawsuit that didn't pan out.

Nope. The crime is fraud.

-jcr

Re:Darl? (4, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217663)

What sort of punishment would be appropriate here? The crime was apparently filing a lawsuit that didn't pan out.

Sorry... I think you'll find the crimes and misdemeanors fall more under the following categories:
Libel
Slander
Stock Fraud
RICO
Breach of Contract

SCI is dying lolololo (-1, Troll)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217139)

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeSCO is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeSCO developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeSCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenSCO leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenSCO. How many users of NetSCO are there? Let's see. The number of OpenSCO versus NetSCO posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetSCO users. SCO/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetSCO posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO/OS. A recent article put FreeSCO at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)4 = 36400 FreeSCO users. This is consistent with the number of FreeSCO Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeSCO went out of business and was taken over by SCOI who sell another troubled OS. Now SCOI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save SCO from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.

Nelson says: (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217141)

HA! HA!

and f.p.

Wow! (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217149)

The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here.

Re:Wow! (4, Insightful)

beheaderaswp (549877) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217219)

Face it. If you get your information from press releases you deserve what you get.

Re:Wow! (3, Insightful)

sholden (12227) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217263)

What do you think the probability that the courts might make a crazy judgement would be?

How high would the stock go if that happened?

It could have been a rational gamble^Winvestment depending on what you judge those two numbers to be.

Re:Wow! (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217471)

What do you think the probability that the courts might make a crazy judgment would be?

This wouldn't be far off. I've been involved in several lawsuits in varying aspects and seen judges make completely insane judgments out of their own arrogance, ignorance & ego. Judgments that would make people sick to see.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing as I've learned that the lawyers are the biggest winners in any case and people should learn to work out their own problems without being so litigious.

Re:Wow! (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217269)

Hedge funds might have taken it on in the "high risk" column. Basically betting on the long odds.

Someone bought those shares today. (5, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217287)

If I'm reading Google's finance page correctly, almost 6 million shares changed hands today.

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=scox [google.com]

Stock cannot sell if someone isn't buying. Who's buying?

Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.

I don't believe that there were than many people betting that it would go up again. Not with the approximately $9 million dollars it would take to have that stock last Friday.

Who's buying the stock and why are they buying it?

I can understand everyone wanting to sell it. I don't understand anyone buying almost 6 millions shares of it today.

Unless it's another scan by SCO to buy stock options from their executives. Trying to empty the company's coffers before Novell gets its cut or IBM beats them.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (5, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217359)

Who's buying the stock

Me.

and why are they buying it?

Gag gifts for the next decade and the pretense of luxury. Some people snort coke with a twenty dollar bill. I curb my dog with stock certificates.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (4, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217389)

A lot of today's buys may have been people closing their short positions.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (1)

gvc (167165) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217391)

It is not to cover a mistake in short-selling. When I short sell, I promise to deliver the stock to you at a later date. So if, say, I sold it to you for $6, or even $1, I can buy it today at $0.50 and discharge my obligations to you, making a tidy profit. Sure I can hold on. But if the agreed price was $6, I don't make much more even if the stock drops to $0. And even if the agreed-on price was $1 I might as well wash my hands of it and be well clear of the final implosion.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (5, Informative)

danpat (119101) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217413)

For people who don't know what a "short" is, it's where you borrow stock from the real holder, then sell it right away. Some time later, you buy it back at the new market price, and return it to its owner. The difference in what you sold the original stock and what you re-purchased it for is your profit. If the stock price rises, you lose money. If it drops, you make money.

My guess would be that a large number of short positions were closed today. Lots of people had shorted SCOX (i.e. borrowed them, then sold them at some earlier date). Today, when the price dropped, they re-bought the stock at the current market price and returned them to their owners.
I personally haven't had enough experience with the market to know how big an influx of short closers it would take to drive the stock price back up again.

Here's the part that doesn't work for me on that. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217601)

For people who don't know what a "short" is, it's where you borrow stock from the real holder, then sell it right away. Some time later, you buy it back at the new market price, and return it to its owner. The difference in what you sold the original stock and what you re-purchased it for is your profit. If the stock price rises, you lose money. If it drops, you make money.

Which depends upon SOMEONE having the stock who is willing to let you do this ... who isn't going to sell it himself ...

Where's his incentive to allow you to "borrow" his property?

Well, normally it is a brokerage firm. But that means that people working for the brokerage firms have been holding onto at least 6 million shares of SCO stock ...

Despite the Baystar debacle.
Despite SCO's financials.
Despite the beating SCO has been taking in court (even before Friday).

Your theory depends too much on too many people being far, Far, FAR, FAR more intelligent than the supposed experts at the brokerage firms. Despite all the warning signs.

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars in loss on this one stock in one day.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (4, Interesting)

ToLu the Happy Furby (63586) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217625)

Well there were about 2.5 million shares short, so even if they all covered that wouldn't even account for half of today's volume. Plus there's no good reason for a short to cover now--yes, there is value in taking your gains up front rather than waiting for it to drop those last 40 cents, but anyone short this stock has to recognize that SCOX is very likely only a few months from bankruptcy which would mean the stock goes to zero and they don't have to buy back their shares at all.

The more likely explanation for most of today's volume is day traders trying to make a quick buck on a suddenly liquid and highly volatile stock. Almost 6 million shares may have been traded, but my guess is that that represents a significantly lower number of shares traded back and forth multiple times.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217417)

Who's buying the stock and why are they buying it?

If something's cheap enough, there will always be someone willing to buy it.

If it gets low enough, someone could snag it if for no other reason than to liquidate its assets. All of those desks, computer monitors, and coffee machines have got to be worth something.

MOD PARENT UP (+5, Insightful) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217623)

Best analysis in the thread, and its going to get buried under everyone talking about what morons people are.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (5, Funny)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217647)

Well- It is in Lindon, Utah.
Probably not that many coffee machines.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (1)

Lex-Man82 (994679) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217427)

I guess people must think that SCO can still make some money back selling there Unix OS or some other software.

Although with all the loses in the IP arena can SCO still legally sell it's OS?

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (1)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217505)

Although with all the loses in the IP arena can SCO still legally sell it's OS?

Who would buy it?

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (4, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217433)

Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.

I don't know about the volume of stock being shorted, but I remember several people on /. saying that they had tried to short, only to find that there were no shares available. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the volume today was shareholders cutting their losses and shorters covering their shorts and making a killing. Certainly I can't think of any other reason why somebody would be buying the stock today. Of course outside the short-sellers there aren't all that many people anxious to buy SCOX, that's why the price plummeted. The ones who did buy outright instead of covering a short are probably hoping for a dead-cat bounce that will let them make some money in the short term.

It's too bad I just wasn't in the financial position for a medium-term investment a few years back. After the initial speculation (it -was- theoretically possible that SCO's code had gotten into Linux, much like it was theoretically possible that SCO owned the copyright for UNIX), there was a lengthy period where it was clear to us geeks that SCOX had no case (when they were finally forced to produce some evidence, and came up with nothing better than a few lines from standard header files) but wouldn't have been to the majority of investors. This was also around the time their stock was riding high. This would have been a perfect time to short. Though, as I mentioned, I'm obviously not the only one who had this idea and it may have already been to late to find any shares to short.

Re:Someone bought those shares today. (1)

Karem Lore (649920) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217587)

There could still be value in the SCO name, and there is still value in the SCO Unix software (IP rights even if they don't actually "own" them). Any company wanting to get into Unix world or use the SCO brand to get recognition will be buying (who will NOT be watching SCO?).

Will it be taken over? Depends on its debts...Too high then unlikely. However, if there are not debts there is value in SCO and if you can get it for a few thousand before it crashes...You already got MASSIVE marketing possibilities: New SCO. Your Foe becomes your Friend, with YOUR SCO (a.k.a FFS, acronym).

How about, for conspiracy sakes, that Microsoft is buying SCO stock on the cheap...It already made a deal with Novell so I doubt if SCO would be required to hand over to Novell any of the 95% of the SCO deal as Novell and MS have already squared this one...Hell knows it needs a better kernel! Then, in competing it will evolve the technology of linux/unix legally into its Windows product, close SCO down (maybe selling the name should it be worth anything) then go after Linux users for infringing on its code because it can prove that many lines of code in their closed source windows product can be found in Linux and therefore own Linux...Oh wait...deja vu...

I don't think anybody wants to own SCO (2, Informative)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217685)

Seems to me there is a real risk for anyone to take over SCO. There are counterclaims in both Novell and IBM and SCO is likely to end up owning tons of money. Wouldn't any buyer inherit those liablities? Much more likely that SCO will go to bankruptcy where the liabilities will be washed away.

Plus, right now SCO has so little value that the only reason to pursue the counterclaims is to bury SCO. But if someone with deep pockets were to buy SCO before everything is settled, that would make pursuit of those counterclaims financially worthwhile too.

Re:Wow! (1)

bbernard (930130) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217299)

"The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here."

Yeah, I just hope they weren't the guys running any of my 401k Mutual Funds...

Re:Wow! (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217329)

The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here.

Well, here's how it was explained to me:

SCO is so dirt-cheap right now that you can basically play with it without risk. At a dollar a share, you can buy a block of 100 shares and if it tanks you've lost a whopping $100. However, if by some miracle they actually managed to win, maybe that $100 would become a few thousand. Basically, it had a huge potential upside with almost no downside and a lot of people bought it just to see what might happen.

Well, that upside just vanished and the stock plummeted. You could also interpret this as meaning that 70% of SCO's market value was based on potential lottery winnings, and when the lottery date came and went without SCO winning, its price dropped to compensate.

But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.

Re:Wow! (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217479)

But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.

Okay, but now I'm thirsty and I still don't know if I should trust your advice!

Re:Wow! (2, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217559)

Okay, but now I'm thirsty and I still don't know if I should trust your advice!

I have to salt my dog's food so that it drinks enough water to keep from being dehydrated.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, but it's all I could think of that seemed to fit.

Re:Wow! (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217363)

I wouldn't infer that at all. More like, some of them thought it was worth a gamble that IBM might pay SCO to fuck off, or that MSFT would buy them out, or any other long-shot scenario.

-jcr

Re:Wow! (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217383)

You have a point there... That combined with the low share cost may make most sense to me. Not that they'd win, but that they just maybe would pull of some PR stunt that bumped the stock a little so they could sell.

Re:Wow! (5, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217409)

Obviously they could not tell their Caldera from a hole in the ground....

Re:Wow! (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217447)

You can still trade in state bonds issued by Czarist Russia. Should Russia ever claim legal succession of the Czarist times, they'd have to pay. You get them for a penny a billion or something like that. From time to time, it spikes sharply (to two pennies) whenever some Russian ruler ponders aloud that he might consider thinking about considering ... you get the idea.

But that aside, it's quite likely that investors don't know jack about IT. How else do you want to explain dot.com? We all know (at least I hope that me and a few friends ain't the only ones) that this HAD TO collapse. It couldn't fly. I guess anyone with a background in BA and IT knew it. Just, those people are very, very rare and they usually used that knowledge for a quite legal get-quick-rich scheme, so they shut their mouth and cashed in.

They generally believe in large corporations. Usually this belief is justified. There is no chance in hell that Coke's ever going under. No matter what happens, no matter how bad the economy, no matter what crisis, no matter what war. Coke will survive it.

It's also likely that they didn't realize that pretty much the complete asset of SCO hangs on this suit. SCO is a pretty large company. Or was, at least, but it still has a name. Names and brands are quite powerful in the investment biz (mostly for the formentioned reason of survival). Virtually no large corps hang on just one single product.

Then there's the tendency of justice to know jack about IT either. So the chance to get a favorable verdict for SCO was actually not really zero. There have been other verdicts that contradict anything remotely touching common sense in the IT department recently.

This is what I think is the reason why investors even considered SCO stock. Yes, it was a risky paper, and at least many might have known. But they relied or believed (you might notice how often I use believe. Mostly because it has a bit of a religion) on assumptions based on recent events and developments. Not so much on reality or logic. Like I said, reality and logic had little to do with many judicial decisions in the IT biz lately.

No. They just believed there was money to be made (2, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217451)

No doubt some shareholders thought SCO might have a genuine case. Many more thought that IBM would pay or buy SCO just to get them out of way. Even more though that they might be able to buy their stock low and sell them to scavengers after the next SCO announcement/stock pump. For a lot of people it was a gamble: perhaps there was a perceived 20% chance of a payout/settlement with the chance of a better than 5:1 payback.

Re:Wow! (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217679)

The SCO Group's market valuation compared against the winnings they hope to get from lawsuits lets you calculate the market's view of the chance that they will be successful. A few years ago someone calculated [osdir.com] that the chance of SCO winning was about 3.7%. SCO's current market capitalization is about $10M. I don't know if the book value of their assets is worth anything - probably not if they owe Novell almost all that money they got from Microsoft. So somebody, somewhere still thinks there is a faint chance of being awarded _something_. But certainly not the $5G crazy money figures they used to throw around.

SCO implodes, Rove resigns ... (4, Funny)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217157)

If a naked Morgan Webb giving away free Wii systems, then we'll know our time has come.

Woot! or is it SCO gets just desserts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217163)

I for one have waited for the day when Darl and Co. fade into the background. He will reappear in another form, but no one will be fooled.

95% (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217167)

" looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program."

Actually, the deal was that SCO remits 100% to Novell, then Novell pays them a 5% commission. Kimball ruled that SCO broke their fiduciary duty to Novell; SCO is no longer able to claim the 5% commission.

The only question left is how much of the Sun and Microsoft licenses were for Novell's stuff?

Die Hard (1)

netdur (816698) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217169)

SCO

Re:Die Hard (3, Funny)

rajafarian (49150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217291)

I prefer to call them SCOX, 'cause that rhymes with... what they are.

It's not over yet... (4, Funny)

surfingmarmot (858550) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217173)

Fake Steve Jobs scooped it: he claims SCO has filed a new lawsuit--it's suing itself and its executives for incompetence in bringing about and losing the UNIX lawsuits. He's kidding, but I'll bet they thought about it a least for a minute or two ;-)

I'm going to buy a bunch of stocks (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217179)

and make a fortune selling them as scrap paper.

Better Use - Toilet Paper (1)

vthokie69 (549779) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217397)

I've got a better idea. I'm going to buy it, print Darl's face and SCO's logo on it, roll it, and then sell it as toilet paper to Slashdot users.

That will certainly leave a lot of satisfied Slashdot users. It'll put a lot of money in my pocket too.

Re:I'm going to buy a bunch of stocks (2, Interesting)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217555)

If you frame the stock certificates, you could probably sell them to linux geeks at far above their market value. A company did this with enron certificates a few years ago.

Oh, SNAP! (1)

skroz (7870) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217183)

As Eric Cartman might say...

"You just got F'ed in the A."

suck it losers!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217187)

Mess wid da penguin and get fucked up homey!!!

Oh joy (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217197)

Just the perfect little news tidbit before bedtime.

^_^

Who invested is SCO anyways? (3, Insightful)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217225)

It really makes you wonder just how dumb some people are. Who throws money at a company making outrageous claims like that with out doing some homework to see if they even have a shred of proof to stand on?

I would be really interested to see how many people, besides people that work for SCO, invested more that $10,000 in their stock. If you're dumb enough to invest in SCO how did you make money in the first place?

Your Parents (1)

themusicgod1 (241799) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217317)

Mutual funds. Pensions. Your parents and grandparents retirement funds. And of course, Microsoft.

Re:Your Parents (4, Funny)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217349)

If my parents used retirement funds to invest in SCO I would cry inside. I raised them better than that.

Re:Who invested is SCO anyways? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217421)

They probably made their money investing in the red hat and va linux IPOs.

Actually, if I had had some money, I would have. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217459)

Once I saw that MS was throwing money in, I figured that it was a bit of a scam. Finding out later that Sun was also investing in them, was a true indication that it was a scam. But it also shows that the stock was going to go up (which it did). Had you invested in them when there were at 2, you would have turned 10K into 100K.

Watch the stock tumble. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217243)

From $1.50 to $0.44 a Share. Day 1 With Stock Below $1 119 days to go.

microsoft trial balloon (3, Interesting)

mytrip (940886) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217253)

I think this whole thing was

A) Pump and Dump SCO stock
B) A Microsoft Trial Balloon


The pump and dump worked pretty well. A bunch of SCO execs sold stock and made money at the expense of the future of the company Microsoft funded part of this lawsuit to harass linux users and see what would happen if they started suing linux users and distros as well.

You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.

Re:microsoft trial balloon (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217619)

You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.

No, they won't tell, and they most likely never will unless they get in a SCO-like situation where their actual revenue stream is drying up fast and it's either sue-and-pray or just die quietly.

I believe this is the primary lesson MS learned from their SCO experiment: The implication of IP infringement is much more effective at scaring people away from Linux than actually trying to prove it. As long as the infringement is a non-specific threat with only a hint of reality behind it, it works on the basic fear-centers of the brains of IT management. As soon as it becomes something real, like a lawsuit, then it instead it invites the managers to use the analytic portions of their brains. FUD and fact checking don't go together.

The concept of FUD is really nothing new to Microsoft of course, but this was an actual test run of "can we scare more people away from Linux with an actual IP lawsuit instead of just claiming that it is unsafe?" and it turns out the answer is "no".

the guys running SCO (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217255)

does this mean that the CEO's running SCO will be going to prison because of this?

Sweet (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217257)

I love playing penny stocks.

How much of Microsoft/SUN is SVRX? (4, Informative)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217279)

The text of the story is technically which says:

SCO ...still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun
However, it is a little misleading in that it has to be determined at trial what percentage of the Microsoft and Sun deals were for SVRX. All the trial judge said is that some amount of those deals is for SVRX. Because the judge determined that the deals weren't entirely SVRX, he couldn't determine any sort of dollar amount. It could be a trivial amount, it could be substantial.

Heard from the original founders of SCO (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217289)

"... SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program."

I was one of the early employess (circa early 1980's), and the words of the original founders come to mind here. These were: "We'd rather owe it to you forever than cheat you out of it".

Let's make a deal! (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217295)

Hey, maybe Novell accepts some stock from SCO as payment. I heard there's plenty going 'round now.

Re:Let's make a deal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217439)

yes, let's see.
If we value a share as being the market value of SCO's assets, divided by the total number of shares:
Total assets: nil
Value per share: $0.00
So, (say) 10 million shares at $0.00 comes to...

On the other hand, how much would the share certificates themselves be worth as souveniers?

Re:Let's make a deal! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217599)

Well, if you're not too picky, you might be able to use them for a good laugh at the loo before sending them on their last trip. At least SCO saved a tree that way!

Buy at 50 cents? (3, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217305)

What I want to know is: who is still stupid enough to buy the stock at 50 cents? Haven't they figured out yet that the next step for SCO is bankruptcy liquidation in which the stockholders get -zilch-?

Re:Buy at 50 cents? (2, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217533)

Nevermind; I figured it out. These are the folks who short-sold when the stock was $5. They figure they've made enough money and keeping the extra 50 cents isn't worth the odd possibility that something sends the stock north again. So, they're buying at 50 cents to cover the previous short and get out of the SCOX game entirely.

That and gamblers (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217665)

I mean it's always possible, even if unlikely, that it'll go back up for some reason. People play penny stocks for that reason. You can buy a shitload of stock for not much money. It doesn't have to move much and you make a bunch. Not the best investment strategy, but you can make money doing it if you get lucky. It really is gambling in a very real way and a surprising number of people do it all the time.

Ah, how sweet it is. Now about that Microsoft... (2, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217309)

Glad to see the SCO stooge go down, but we still face the great enemy of freedom, Microsoft. Freedom is about choice, and Microsoft is *ALL* about eliminating any real choice.

In one sense, I deny that it matters. Since I believe we are evolving towards more freedom, then the momentary ups and downs don't matter so much. Societies that have more freedom and democracy receive competitive advantages, and eventually they will prosper over the less free societies. However, it still saddens me greatly to observe Microsoft's fundamentally negative contributions to the long-term competitiveness of America. However, it makes me laugh to hear Gates complain about the slow rate of software evolution when his own Microsoft is the biggest single obstacle to *REAL* innovation and change.

However, at least the obstacle called SCO has been removed. Worth a bit of a celebration. This tool is used up.

Wow (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217321)

Never saw that one coming.

So Novell own Unix. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217335)

So Novell could make Linux into Unix?
Novell has killed most the lawsuit with IBM.
Novell has driven a stake into SCOs heart.
I have to wonder how long it will be until Novell's deal with Microsoft is forgiven. Frankly to me it always seemed like it was just a way to get money out of Microsoft and it doesn't seem to have hurt Linux.
So how long before the zealots get over it?

Re:So Novell own Unix. (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217593)

GNU's not unix!!!

and GNU's not windows either...

Re:So Novell own Unix. (1)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217729)

"So Novell could make Linux into Unix?"

Unix is a registered trademark of The Open Group, not Novell. But Linux is Unix anyway: trademark law only regulates the use of terms in trade, not what words mean.

SCO still in the running. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217339)

I'd hate to burst your collective bubbles, but SCO is still very much in business and still remains a serious threat to the Linux community.

Although SCO doesn't own the copyrights to Unix, it does own the copyrights to its own derivative pieces and parts, and it is those derivatives which SCO is now making their claims on.

This doesn't seem to diminish the financial impact of what it owes Novell, but if SCO can successfully show that it's own copyrights are within Linux, then SCO could have substantially more value than what it owes Novell.

So! Perhaps SCO still has substantial value, but only if SCO can prove this much more limited case. The question is: are investors still willing to fund the legal case given the potential payout? It depends on the potential of victory, the amount of money that a victory is worth, and the cost of additional legal battles.

Given today's stock activity, it seems that investors have little confidence in SCO:

Odds of Victory & PotentalWinning$ seem much closer to zero.

Re:SCO still in the running. (3, Interesting)

gvc (167165) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217477)

None of SCO's copyight claims involve their own code. They involve "Original AT&T code." The only SCO code demonstrated to be in Linux is the stuff labeled "Copyright Caldera" immediately followed by a GPL-2 license.

Re:SCO still in the running. (4, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217511)

No, Sco basically said that they retain ownership on the parts they added to unixware( which don't affect IBM's code which predates that). It is relevant in its on going trial against Novell. part of the deal was that novell agreed to non compete with Sco as part of the deal. Sco's arguing that distributing linux ( that does have unix code in it, according to Sco ) unfairly violated the non-compete clause in their contract.

The Financial Situation For SCO (5, Informative)

SEE (7681) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217387)

As of April 30, 2007, SCO had $19.847 million in total assets (which includes no intangibles), and $12.654 million in total liabilities, according to the Reuters data [reuters.com]

The ruling on the Microsoft/Sun royalties owed to Novell adds roughly $25 million to the liabilities, making SCO worth roughly -18 million dollars, book value.

Re:The Financial Situation For SCO (1)

gvc (167165) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217515)

It has to be determined what fraction of the Sun/Microsoft licenses are SVRX, and that will affect the judgement. Also, there may well be punitive damages and rather large costs. And don't forget that Novell's slander of title suit is going to trial as well.

Re:The Financial Situation For SCO (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217675)

That's all true. SCO might have anything from a small positive net value (if the SVRX fraction is low and they avoid owing anything on counterclaims) to a much more negative net value. And the book value on Reuters lists "--" for intangibles, so this doesn't count the value of their copyrights (they have some code they wrote and own; that's why the sales might not have been 100% SVRX) trademarks, and possible patents.

Actually (1)

kithrup (778358) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217501)

which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX

Actually, they owe Novell 100%, and then Novell is to pay TSG back 5%.

Perhaps a mere technicality since they'll be lucky if they get enough to cover the postage, but it really is worth remembering that none of that money is TSG's until Novell sends it back.

Re:Actually (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217643)

word is that Novell may just decide to require TSCOG to forfeit the 5% since that had to sue to get the 95%

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217529)

SCO's stock price has fallen 70 percent during trading today, reaching a 52-week low.

Isn't the implication of this statement that SCO's stock price has more than tripled in the past year?

Money Due Novel (1)

KirbyCombat (1142225) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217535)

I am quite puzzled (no surprise) by some of the comments regarding money owed to Novel. Let's say it went down like this... I own property (Mr Jones), and I enter into a contract with Mr. Smith to let out that property. Mr. Jones gets all of the money, then pays Mr Smith a management fee. Mr. Smith, outside of the contract, then sells some of the property claiming that it is his to sell and Mr. Jones doesn't get a dime. After three years of court proceedings, the court rules for Mr. Jones, and oh, BTW, Mr. Smith is now bankrupt. So, 1) Mr. Smith broke the contract 3 years ago. Clearly, Mr. Smith is entitled to relief. 2) Whoever bought the property doesn't get to keep it. Get whatever money you can from the bankruptcy proceedings. 3) The property reverts to Mr. Jones. If you still want to buy it, then talk to him. So SCO entered into an agreement that they had no authority (or did they?) to enter into with MS and Sun? If they did have authority, but didn't pay the owner, is the deal valid? Can Novel say, "We don't want a dime (and won't get one anyway), so these deals are off."? SCO sold you a pig in a poke, go after them yourselves? That seems much more reasonable to me....

Does ANYONE work at SCO? (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217539)

I mean, it's not like they're doing anything. I'm wondering if it is just a bunch of lawyers and vultures sitting around in veal fattening pens collecting pay checks.

Certainly, they all know they're now in a major death spiral. All they can do is slowly lay off people as more and more of it sinks below the waters into the briny deep of history.

RS

translation (3, Funny)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217573)

"[W]e will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said"

We are fucked, and are desperating trying to think of something to save our selfs.

How much for the toilet paper? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217577)

I mean, the stocks? I mean, if it's not too expensive, I'll just go and grab the whole junk, just to flip Darl and tell him to clean his office by 5pm.

Not to mention that it might be quite nice on the CV to list "CEO of SCO". Though, whether "last CEO of SCO" is such a good thing... Well, in IT, when you get a recruiter who knows a bit about IT, he might love you for turning the lights off.

SCO next move... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20217585)

... Penny stock spam

Tags please! (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217711)

We need more people to tag this with the "fatality" tag :)

Two points I'd like to make (2, Insightful)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 7 years ago | (#20217723)

First of all, we have probably years of the obligatory appeals to wade through. It ain't over yet! Secondly, how long do you think it will be before SCO shares become the subject of pump-and-dump spam emails?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?