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!

Nasdaq to Delist SCO Sep 27

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the please-let-this-be-the-end dept.

The Almighty Buck 269

symbolset writes "The Nasdaq Staff has decided to delist SCO at open of business on September 27, 2007 under their discretionary authority and as a result of SCO filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. SCO can get a hearing but "There can be no assurance that the panel will grant the Company's request for continued listing.""

cancel ×

269 comments

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

Good bye and... (5, Funny)

drspliff (652992) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676719)

Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)

in mother russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676795)

nasdaq delists you!

This is really bad news for me. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676821)

I started investing my $20,000 student loan instead of using it to get my MBA. Well, I bought about $7000 worth SCOX stock back when it was worth a little more than a dollar. Well, now I am very worried about what is going to happen to my investment. It is bad enough that it has depreciated more than five times what I paid. And to those wondering... I didn't buy the SCOX stock because I thought The SCO Group would win against IBM. And I use Linux a lot. I bought the SCO stock because I thought their UnixWare and Open Server offerings were valuable enough that in time the market would weigh them instead of voting. I really hope Darl can turn this around pretty fast. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:This is really bad news for me. (0, Flamebait)

drspliff (652992) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676851)

I'd bet you're the kinda person who sees a steaming pile of shit and goes "Oh goody, I'll make hundereds selling it off as compost".

Tough luck with the SCO stock though, not sure why the steaming pile of shit analogy came to mind there though!

Re:This is really bad news for me. (4, Funny)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676879)

So why didn't you get the MBA instead of investing the loan?

Re:This is really bad news for me. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676913)

Hahahahahahahah

I shorted SCO right as the lawsuits started flying. Made an easy $100k. You'd have to be retarded to think they were going to be successful in *any* way. THANKS!

Re:This is really bad news for me. (5, Funny)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677081)

I'm reminded of this quote:

<kylev> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
<kylev> hahahahaha
<kylev> some girl just came onto our floor
<kylev> and was yelling "sexual favors for anyone who does my sociology paper"
<kylev> i just asked her what the paper was about
<kylev> and she said the accomplishments and growth of feminism
<`Neo> bahahahaha

Re:This is really bad news for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677199)

I suggest going after the company directors. They're the jokers who got the company (and therefore your stake in it) into the fraudulent mess of lawsuits that killed it..

Re:This is really bad news for me. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677253)

I really hope Darl can turn this around pretty fast.

      Hope turns men into fools. You should have cut and run a long time ago, and yet still you hang on. Hello, it's going to be DE-LISTED. So unless you want to try to sell your stock in the classifieds, I'd accept my losses and get out while I can. 10 cents on the dollar is better than zero.

Re:This is really bad news for me. (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677377)

Never understood the shorted thing, but if I had the money and was living in the US I would have gone for that option (well I at least understand that you are somewhat betting against them doing good, and SCO was a dead fish).

Re:This is really bad news for me. (5, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677503)

Shorting is simply selling what you don't have. Stock certificates are just pieces of paper. And your broker probably has a huge inventory of stock in his portfolio. So when you "short" something you are basically telling your broker that you agree to sell a stock that you don't own. There's no problem with this, since there are rigid mechanisms in place (today) to avoid fraud.

If you sell stock you don't own you HAVE to buy it back OR make good the monetary difference at some point in the future.

So let's say you "short" 100 shares of SCO when it is at $10 a share (yeah right). Your broker deposits $1000 in your account and records your sale. He may or may not have to adjust his own share inventory at this point, but as far as you are concerned you just "made" $1000.

Now if the price goes up, say to $15 per share, it would cost you $1500 to buy those 100 shares back. If you have plenty of money in your investment account your broker will just let it slide. But if you run out of credit (ie you don't have more than $1500), your broker will oblige you to buy back the stock, since he no longer has any assurance that you will be able to pay if the stock keeps going up. This is how you get screwed with short sales.

On the other hand, if the stock goes DOWN, say to $5 a share, then you are laughing, because once you decide to "cash in" on your investment, you "buy back" the 100 shares you sold at the current price of $500 ($5 per share). That means you pay $500 out of your account. But remember that your broker has already put $1000 in your account from the short sale you made earlier. So you've earned the balance - $1000 you were given for "selling" the stock short, less $500 to "buy back" the stock and close your commitment with your broker leaves you a profit of $500.

This is a bit off-topic but I felt like writing. Hopefully you understand "short" selling now. Just remember that ALL stocks tend to RISE in value over time (unless there's something REALLY wrong with the company/sector/economy). It's not easy to make money by selling short, but when you spot a stock that is ridiculously overvalued, well, what goes up must also come down at some point. Judging when to buy and when to sell is what makes the difference between people who lose on Wall St. and people who win. And remember, if it was easy, everyone would be rich.

Re:This is really bad news for me. (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677371)

So sorry about your investment, but you're invited over to a kegger at my place with your notebook computer where a friend of mine has arranged a special web feed where we can see SCOX being dropped off the NASDAQ in real time - kind of like the ball dropping in Times Square in NYC at the stroke of midnight. Bring your own fireworks.

Cheers!

Re:Good bye and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676873)

Remember to wrap the bell in cotton, duct tape and concrete. This is the only case where nobody wants the dead ringer to be noticed an dug up.

Re:Good bye and... (1)

SimonInOz (579741) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676915)

May I be the first to offer condolences to Darl McBride.

Re:Good bye and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677069)

You may. You'll probably also be the last.

Re:Good bye and... (2, Funny)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677463)

May I be the first to offer condolences to Darl McBride.

Except that I tagged the story 'poordarl' right after it was posted :P

Of course I also tagged it 'poorsco' and 'makethempayforwhattheyvedone'. What can I say, I try to be descriptive :)

Re:Good bye and... (1)

Vulva R. Thompson, P (1060828) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676927)

If you heard it ring, would you do anything about it? ;)

Re:Good bye and... (3, Funny)

AndyCR (1091663) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677019)

Yeah. Cut the string off the bell.

Re:Good bye and... (3, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677321)

dig up the casket, riddle corpse with silver bullets, stab through heart with a crusifix, pour salt down its throat, cut off its head, and re bury it with a hunk of kyrptonite. Just in case it turned into a werewolf, vampire, authentic or movie zombie, or superman.

Re:Good bye and... (3, Funny)

texaport (600120) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676979)

And be sure to drive a stake through the heart
just in case.

Re:Good bye and... (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677285)

You know we should probably consider nukes...maybe even launch them into orbit them drop them from there...one would imagine that it's the only way to be sure with these sorts of things...

Re:Good bye and... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677119)

Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)

Might I suggest 's/bell "just in case"/hard-wearing dance floor/'. There will be a long queue...

Actually by charging $2 admission for the chance to dance on SCO's grave, I'm sure we could put together some package to aquire the rights to whatever IP SCO claim to have, so that Darl can't just buy it at firesale prices and start all over again.

hmm (5, Funny)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676731)

I got dibs on sco.com!

Re:hmm (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676775)

That will become a rocking anal pr0n site!

Re:hmm (5, Interesting)

mudshark (19714) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677249)

Interesting factoid: It's currently number 86 out of the 100 oldest .com domain names which remain in use today. Funny how the number 86 would prove portentous...from UNIX for x86 processors to being 86ed from the NASDAQ.

Wow it really IS everywhere! (2, Funny)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677395)

8 is divisible by 2, and 6 is divisible by 3! 86 is related to 23! I should write a movie about it!

Re:hmm (1)

thegameiam (671961) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677493)

That's an interesting tidbit- where did you find the list of the oldest domains? I don't have a hosts.txt that's QUITE that old...

*BSD is Dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676735)

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

linux - bad for business? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676741)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

What happens? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676753)

So what happens to those of us who short sold their stock?

Re:What happens? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676793)

You think you have problems? I put my entire 401K into SCO. Oh god, the humanity!!!

Re:What happens? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676917)

i dunno, the way the stock looks right now, it looks like a prime opportunity for day traders, being as at this price, it is fluctuating in the double-digits, and it's gone up by about 25% today (from $0.16 to $0.20) and it was up a whole $0.08 (from $0.16 to $0.24) at the high point today, which was a gain of 50%. and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.

Re:What happens? (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677181)

and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.

Quick lesson. Risk is measured in basis points, or bps (pronounced "bips"), i.e. 1/100 of a percent. Risk is not measured in dollars, so the price magnitude of a security is no measure of its risk.

Re:What happens? (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677217)

and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.

      I beg to differ: this doesn't make sense. Because if you're only going to buy 100 shares for say $20 then I agree the "risk" is minimal. After all, the most you can lose is $20. Wow big deal. However you'll have a hard time paying your $14 ($7 each way) commission on that.

      So if you're going to go in for a fair chunk of change - say $20k or so (around 100k shares), I wouldn't consider losing 50% ($10k) or even 5% ($1k) "minimal" risk. Yeah ok shorting the stuff makes sense, but if you get caught on the wrong side for some reason (like you said, it went up 50% somehow) it won't take very long for you to shit your pants.

      If you play with a stock from a company with non-existent fundamentals like SCO, don't complain if you get burned. You will probably get better odds on the roulette table at your nearest casino.

Re:What happens? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676839)

You go to pinksheets.com, buy the amount of stock back you shorted for pennies on the dollar, then surrender it back to your broker.

Re:What happens? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677197)

What happens if they go completely bankrupt and you can't get the stock anywhere anymore? I was kind of wondering the same thing with Iridium several years back when their stock was flying high and dropped to nothing after becoming bankrupt.

Re:What happens? (2, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677281)

What happens if they go completely bankrupt and you can't get the stock anywhere anymore?
They might take Charmin in lieu of stock. Thankfully that stuff is always available. Of course, the company behind Charmin has a viable business model.

Re:What happens? (1)

pchan- (118053) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677309)

Assuming, of course, you can find someone to buy the stock from you. And the stock doesn't go to zero.

Re:What happens? (2, Informative)

pchan- (118053) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677353)

Assuming, of course, you can find someone to buy the stock from you

Er, assuming you can find someone to buy from. I think there are more shorts than holders.

Re:What happens? (2, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676959)

You get that sound effect: "wah, wah, wah, waaaaaah...."

Re:What happens? (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677313)

You get that sound effect: "wah, wah, wah, waaaaaah...."

I don't think you understand the concept of shorting. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677135)

And if SCO ceases to exist completely, will you be forced to start a new company named SCO just to honor your short?

Re:What happens? (4, Informative)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677363)

What happens if I maintain a short position in a stock that is delisted and declares bankruptcy? [investopedia.com] says you have pure profit, basically.

I'm guessing you know about covering dividends, one-time special payments, and the like to the long holder. Short selling is fraught with danger, but boy can't it be handy?

Re:What happens? (1)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677391)

They go and buy scosource [sco.com] licenses to keep the boat afloat until they can buy shares to cover their position.

"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technology" (5, Insightful)

tokki (604363) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676761)

a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services,

So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?

Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676773)

SGI did, but they also pulled out of bankruptcy.

-jcr

Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676785)

Perhaps leading suppliers of UNIX do...

Cordially,

A FreeBSD user

Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676863)

a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services,

So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?

Just leading providers of lawsuits.

Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo (5, Funny)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677319)

So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?

That's a typo. It's supposed to be "a leaving provider..."

I only wish (2, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676765)

I could some how take credit for this, it seems like a positive achievement.

Slashdot contributed a lot. (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676769)

I'm guessing that Slashdot contributed a lot in making the right thing happen concerning SCO. Slashdot got the message out to everyone, over and over again, helping deprive SCO of profit from confused executives.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

Orthuberra (1145497) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676787)

Ssshh, quiet you don't want Darl to start suing Slashdot for unfair competition do you? :D

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676977)

Why not? I'm sure that Cowboy Neal could use a couple gold Ferraris. I mean you've seen the effect that Sco has on the parties they sue.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (2, Funny)

shanen (462549) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676797)

Right. Those "confused executives" just looked for 'insightful' mods on /. and they knew what to do. Riiiiight.

Seriously, folks. No applause, no mod points, just throw money.

As for SCO, I predict their SCOX stock prices will have be reported using infinitesimals before the 27th. I knew I studied all that math stuff for some reason.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676819)

Oh, yeah. As I noted in my first response to the first SCO bankruptcy article, I think they should have reduced the entire topic to a poll. That could have spanned the entire period without all the minor variations. Not quite dupes, but close enough for government work.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

el cisne (135112) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676969)

Speaking of confused....or maybe just comatose...here's a quote from The Didiot :

"'It is clearly a red light,' said Laura DiDio, an analyst at The Yankee Group in Boston. 'If I were an investor, I would be very concerned.'

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677429)

Actually, I think they did. Remember all the stories where Darl and other higher ups were selling off their shares why they could and everyone here was calling for SEC investigations?

They must have seen this coming a long time ago just like it has been prophesied here many times.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

yani (50270) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676813)

One wonders how many executives read Slashdot... or even how many people within talking distance in the company hierarchy for that matter.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677383)

if executives are anything like slashdot editors, I'd wager none.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

dosh8er (608167) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676875)

... because confused execs sit in their parent's basement and surf slashdot at all hours of the day. Not to discredit the wonders of the /. system, because /.ing is a real phenomenon (ask any down-to-earth web admin), they had it coming, and many in the /. crowd were just waiting. This was an inevitable event, since SCO's stock a few months back was no more than 27ish cents... dear god, why didn't anyone put a bullet in that poor horse when it got out of hand? Well folks, just proves, even with a lot of high dollar lawyers, you still can't get out of jail free card. I hope this will stand as a standard for those twisted enough to try this kind of crap-- whether it be civil (Paris, OJ, et al) or business in SCO's case. It's these little victories that give me hope for the future of our judicial system. Perhaps a few more people will wake up and drink some coffee... speaking of which... ...i'm out.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677025)

Try again. It was Groklaw.

Re:Slashdot contributed a lot. (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677079)

Actually full marks go to PJ. Groklaw rocks!!

Slashdot kept us aware of SCO & Groklaw's anal (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677461)

The parent comment was moderated "Troll", and several people have made disparaging comments.

However, this is how I figure it, and I'm serious, not joking: Slashdot kept the SCO issues and Groklaw's analysis of them in front of the eyes of a lot of Slashdot readers who were executives or knew executives, and in the normal course of discussing computer issues, created a culture of understanding SCO as not trustworthy.

As poor as the editing of Slashdot is sometimes, I don't know any better way to get computer-related news. If you know of a better way, please mention it.

Delisting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676771)

Looks like they're heading for the pink sheets!

Not as big a deal as it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676777)

NASDAQ delisted dot-com darling Salon.com (SALN), but its corpse has managed to shuffle around long enough to make it into the glorious Web 2.0 era. The SCO may also rise again.

Re:Not as big a deal as it sounds (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677173)

NASDAQ delisted dot-com darling Salon.com (SALN), but its corpse has managed to shuffle around long enough to make it into the glorious Web 2.0 era. The SCO may also rise again.

      Somehow I doubt it. Salon.com didn't start suing people with bogus claims. I'm sure certain influential and VERY large corporations will see it as their duty that SCO won't rise again...

Re:Not as big a deal as it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677247)

Darl, is this you? (Or maybe a family member?)

A good start, but... (5, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676823)

Someone, maybe Novell, needs to ask the Bankruptcy Court to deny SCO's filing for Chapter 11 on the grounds that there's no way they can re-organize into a viable operation, and therefore they need to be liquidated. Then the creditors can auction off the honor of kicking Darl out on his ass.

Re:A good start, but... (5, Interesting)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676951)

The conversion from chapter 11 (re-organization) to chapter 7 (liquidation) happens automatically if the company can't show how they can remain a going concern. Assuming Novell gets justice, this is a done deal.

The judge in the SCO v. Novell case ruled that SCO retained money that legally belonged to Novell (the legal term is "conversion"). The amount has yet to be determined but chances are that it is greater than SCO's net worth ($30 million has been bandied about). Since this is money that SCO had no right to keep, Novell moves ahead of the creditor pack and SCO is toast. If you dig around on Groklaw, someone found the clause in the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA - the legal document that set up SCO as the bagman and overseer of Unix licenses) that states that money collected by SCO for Unix SVRX licenses belongs to Novell specifcally in case SCO declares bankruptcy.

SCO is in the same position as a bank robber who tries to declare bankruptcy to avoid giving the bank back it's money. The bank robber may have other creditors but they have no claim on the money stolen from the bank since it's still the bank's money. SCO didn't rob a bank but they illegally converted money that belongs to Novell into their own which amounts to the same thing.

I wonder if any of SCO's old trade show swag is at all interesting. Who knows, in fifty years it might be worth something on e-bay.

Cheers,
Dave

What about Micro$oft ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677175)

Hey, isn't Micro$oft owning Novell, as of lately ? So, if Novell ends up with any exclusive Unix property, doesn't that mean that this can be used by Micro$oft to bully Linux competition ?

Re:What about Micro$oft ? (2, Insightful)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677339)

Hey, isn't Micro$oft owning Novell, as of lately ? So, if Novell ends up with any exclusive Unix property, doesn't that mean that this can be used by Micro$oft to bully Linux competition ?

Like SCO tried bullying IBM?

Re:What about Micro$oft ? (3, Interesting)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677397)

The judge already found that Novell is the rightful owner of Unix so that concern is a little late. On the other hand, Novell also now owns SuSE Linux and continues to distribute it under the GPL. That means that any overlap, whether intentional or unintentional, no longer matters. There are no longer *ANY* grounds for someone to claim that Linux infringes Unix copyrights. Any such "infringement" just means that Novell as the Unix copyright owner released the code under the GPL. Funny how that works.

I'd worry more about MicroSoft's new pattent FUD campaign. They're using the same strategy as SCO but claiming pattents instead of copyrights (claim there's infringement but not say where or even which patents). S-I-G-H. On the plus side, M$ keeps getting zinged by patent trolls so maybe they'll start working against software patents. Big, rich companies have a lot more to lose and very little to gain.

Cheers,
Dave

BTW, IANAL so the above may be wrong but I don't think so.

Re:What about Micro$oft ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677441)

No. You're either seriously paranoid or just trying to stir up shit.

In fact, it wouldn't matter if even if *Microsoft* OWNED the damned UNIX source code. SCO has been trying to find UNIX in Linux for what, 5 years? You don't think they would have found *something* if there was any, rather than resorting to outlandish theories about copyright? Theories that quite frankly are nothing but downright laughable, I might add.

This is completely sidestepping a whole bunch of judicial terms, such as promissory estoppel, anti-trust, etc, etc, etc.

To summarize; Be a good boy, take your pills and shut up.

To echo the trolls of old... (0, Offtopic)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676841)

For those of you who remember this tired old phrase:

SHORT SCO NOW! *

* this, for anyone who remembers just how long ago that was first heard on slashdot...

Re:To echo the trolls of old... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676939)

just wondering, but what happens if the stock bottoms out (hits $0.00000...) when you've shorted it?

Re:To echo the trolls of old... (1)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677015)

You buy the stock back for a penny and close your position.

Re:To echo the trolls of old... (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677099)

..A whole penny? Why should I have to spend a whole penny if it's not even worth one billionth of that?

Re:To echo the trolls of old... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677139)

That's when you try to buy it back.

Also, looking at the other guy (the one who bought your stock) and clicking your tongue while muttering "sucker" is valid at this point.

Re:To echo the trolls of old... (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677511)

Then you've made pure profit, it would be like someone handing you a blank check.

When will it end? (1, Offtopic)

allthefish (1158249) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676847)

As much as I like seeing these guys suffer, I'm starting to think that its about enough of that. I know everyone was nervous during the suit; even though we all knew they had no legal leg to stand on, the US court system is not what it used to be. So most of us were afraid of the future of linux, and now we can justifiably laugh at them.

However, i'm starting to get tired of hearing about The SCO Group in every third /. post. Really, we're giving them more attention then they deserve. The company never put out anything useful (SCO did. Caldera did. The SCO Group didn't), so its no wonder they're dying. Now really, can't we just let them die without all this coverage?

Developer Laments: What Killed FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676881)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

Good time for raises, too! (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676903)

From their Form 8-K filing [yahoo.com] :

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers. On September 13, 2007, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company"), approved an increase in the base salary of Ryan E. Tibbitts. Mr. Tibbitts' base salary will be increased from $160,000 per year to $210,000 per year, effective as of September 3, 2007. In recognition of the significant contributions Mr. Tibbitts has made to the Company, the Board also approved a discretionary bonus of $50,000, net of taxes, to be paid to Mr. Tibbitts.

Why yes, yes, this seems like a splendid time to start giving out raises.

I'm pretty ignorant of finance and law, but is there any reason whatsoever for the stockholders not to sue the board into destitution at this point?

Re:Good time for raises, too! (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677103)

Maybe it just means that they succeeded in whatever it is they really intended to do. And I would wager that many stockholders made out as well if they played it right. For some other investors, any losses can be easily absorbed by the rest of their portfolio.

Re:Good time for raises, too! (5, Informative)

j. andrew rogers (774820) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677113)

The "pay raise" is a bribe by the board for key executives to not jump ship. It is a common pattern when companies are in trouble to put golden handcuffs on key people to keep them around to see the trouble through to the end rather than leaving for better climes with fewer risks. If you think about it, it makes a certain amount of economic sense.

Common in Bankruptcy (2, Informative)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677157)

It's common in bankruptcy to pay people extra to stay (those that will/could have a material impact on the finances of the company). The company I was at recently paid stay bonuses and a couple people saved the company far more money than they were paid to stay due to information they had on open issues.

Re:Good time for raises, too! (4, Funny)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677421)

I'm pretty ignorant of finance and law, but is there any reason whatsoever for the stockholders not to sue the board into destitution at this point?

You may think you're ignorant, but you're obviously head and shoulders above the people whose reasoning you're questioning. For all we know, the smartest current SCO stockholders might already have tried to call lawyers and file lawsuits, only to find themselves unable to figure out how to work the telephone.

Ah, more spam! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20676923)

Just be prepared for future waves of SCO penny stock pump-n-dump spam mailings.

I have just one thing to say. (1)

lottameez (816335) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676957)

Buy low, sell high.

Will I buy it? Absolutely.


Not. (ok technically, that's about three things to say)

Re:I have just one thing to say. (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 7 years ago | (#20676995)

In the case of SCO, it is more like "buy low, get pissed-off and sell lower," or maybe "buy low, get pissed-off when the company moves from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, liquidates all of its assets, and ceases all operations."

Soon SCOX.pk spam (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677041)

Soon, we will be getting spam pumping SCOX.pk.

The question is, will the the SCO management be the ones sending out the spam?

Re:Soon SCOX.pk spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677179)

Nah, they'll just hire a spam mail contractor to do it for them. (Anonymously, of course.)

Re:Soon SCOX.pk spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677257)

But will they sue the spammer because the spammer is using Linux?

Re:Soon SCOX.pk spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677387)

and having the spam mail contractor sending via MMDF [wikipedia.org] (who else use MMDF as the MTA these days?)

Snowed By SCO (5, Informative)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677045)

From this article

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html [forbes.com]

Daniel Lyons has some choice quotes

"I reported what they said. Turns out I was getting played. They never produced a smoking gun."

and

"It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right."

Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.

Re:Snowed By SCO (1)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677133)

Daniel Lyons also said

SCO is road kill. Its lawsuit long ago ceased to represent any threat to Linux. That operating system has become far too successful to be dislodged. Someday soon the SCO lawsuits will go away, and I will never have to write another article about SCO ever again. I can't wait.

Unimpressed by his apology; he doesn't get it (5, Insightful)

KWTm (808824) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677527)

Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.

I'm not impressed. Anyone can say, "Oh. Er, oops." It's easy to couch it in terms that *sound* like you're really humble, like "I was really REALLY wrong." Big deal.

He makes it sound like it just so happened that the geeks were right and he was wrong. "Turns out those amateur sleuths were right." He refers to arguably one of the largest communities of people who do this for a living plus interested and competent hobbyists as though he were saying, "Oh, look! Those little kids turned out to be right after all."

He does not see *why* we saw that SCO had no leg to stand on. He does not realize how, next time, he can do better than the flip of a coin. He says, "... the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose," and doesn't realize the painstaking review and due diligence that went on there that would put wikipedia to shame.

He says:

SCO is road kill. Its lawsuit long ago ceased to represent any threat to Linux. That operating system has become far too successful to be dislodged.

Er, so SCO failed because Linux was too successful?

No, Mr. Lyons. SCO failed because SCO was wrong , and if they had won, they still would have been wrong except there would have been a miscarriage of justice. It's not because someone threw the dice wrong or that the "pack" known as Slashdot or Groklaw happened to have a good day. It's not because you've been getting too much email pointing out that you were misinformed, Mr. Lyons, or ignorant.

You don't fool me. Your basic thinking shows through in your words, even though those words sound nice on the surface. Kinda like the press releases of this other company I know that turned out to be wrong.

-----
(By the way, I expect Laura Didio and Enderle to write something like, "Well, darnit, looks like Novell owns the rights to Unix, not SCO. So we'll just wait for Novell to sue Linux for blatant copying of Unix source into Linux.")

It is to laugh (3, Informative)

davmoo (63521) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677083)

From SCO's press release: a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services

I have to laugh every time I see this line in their press releases. Even before their ill-advised journey in to the legal system, and back in their prime and heyday and earlier incarnations, SCO was never the leading provider of a damned thing.

What would make this story complete would be if SCO's remaining share holders were to file suit against its officers and directors.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get ready to listen to the Fat Lady sing :-)

mod do38 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20677123)

Do They Even Have Any Customers?????? (2, Insightful)

1mck (861167) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677163)

Do these Clowns even have anymore customers after what they've pulled? Who the hell would even stick with their products with all of this fiasco going on? If they do have any, then perhaps we of the Tech Field should point them to a much better solution for their needs, eh?

The last person out the door at SCO... (4, Funny)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 7 years ago | (#20677207)

...turn out the lights.

Oh, and grab me one of them Aeron chairs while you're at it.

Thanks!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?