decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G
Monday, February 16 2004 @ 03:31 AM EST

I went to see if there were any other new SCO SEC filings, and look what I just found, Royce and Associates, in a Schedule 13G/A filed February 6. Somebody still loves SCO.

It's at:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000090630404000174/scox1.txt

It's off of this page: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/
000090630404000174/0000906304-04-000174-index.htm

For a look at Royce holdings as of December 31, 2003:
http://www.roycefunds.com/cgi-bin/search/search.pl?Terms=SCO&x=29&y=12



*************************************************

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 13G
(Rule 13d-102)
Information statement pursuant to Rules 13d-1 and 13d-2

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.1)

SCO Group, Inc. (The)
(Name of Issuer)

Common Stock
(Title of Class of Securities)

78403A106
(CUSIP Number)

Date of Event Which Requires Filing of this Statement: December 31, 2003

*The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting
person's initial filing on this form with respect to the subject class of
securities, and for any subsequent amendment containing information which
would alter the disclosures provided in a prior cover page.

The information required in the remainder of this cover page shall not be
deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section
of the Act but shall be subject to all other provisions of the Act (however,
see the Notes).

CUSIP No. 78403A106 13G
1 NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
S.S. OR I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NO. OF ABOVE PERSON
Royce & Associates, LLC 52-2343049

2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) [ ]
(b)

3 SEC USE ONLY

4 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
New York

NUMBER OF 5 SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 1,609,700

BENEFICIALLY 6 SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY
EACH 7 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 1,609,700
PERSON 8 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
WITH

9 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING
PERSON 1,609,700

10 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (9)
EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES [ ]

11 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (9)
11.63%

12 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IA


CUSIP No. 78403A106 13G
Item 1(a) Name of Issuer:
SCO Group, Inc. (The)

Item 1(b) Address of Issuer's Principal Executive Offices:
Investor relations
355 South 520 West
Lindon, UT 84042
Item 2(a) Name of Persons Filing: Royce & Associates, LLC

Item 2(b) Address of Principal Business Office, or, if None, Residence:
1414 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

Item 2(c) Citizenship: New York Corporation

Item 2(d) Title of Class of Securities: Common Stock

Item 2(e) CUSIP Number: 78403A106

Item 3 If this statement is filed pursuant to rules 13d-1(b), or 13d-
2(b), check whether the person filing is a:
(a) [ ] Broker or Dealer registered under Section 15 of the Act
(b) [ ] Bank as defined in Section 3(a)(6) of the Act
(c) [ ] Insurance Company as defined in Section 3(a)(19) of the Act
(d) [ ] Investment Company registered under Section 8 of
the Investment Company Act
(e) [X] Investment Adviser registered under Section 203 of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(f) [ ] Employee Benefit Plan, Pension Fund which is
subject to the provisions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or Endowment Fund
(g) [ ] Parent Holding Company, in accordance with Rule 13d-1 (b)(ii)(G)
(h) [ ] Group

CUSIP No. 78403A106 13G
Item 4 Ownership
(a) Amount Beneficially Owned: 1,609,700
(b) Percent of Class: 11.63%
(c) Number of shares as to which such person has:

(i) sole power to vote or to direct the vote - 1,609,700

(ii) shared power to vote or to direct the vote
__________
(iii) sole power to dispose or to direct the disposition of - 1,609,700
(iv) shared power to dispose or to direct the
disposition of __________

Item 5 Ownership of Five Percent or Less of a Class. [ ]

Item 6 Ownership of More than Five Percent on Behalf of Another Person .
NOT APPLICABLE

Item 7 Identification and Classification of the Subsidiary Which Acquired
The Security Being Reported on by the Parent Holding
Company. - NOT APPLICABLE

Item 8 Identification and Classification of Members of the Group. NOT APPLICABLE

Item 9 Notice of Dissolution of Group. NOT APPLICABLE

CUSIP No. 78403A106 13G
Item 10 Certification.

By signing below I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
the securities referred to above were acquired and are held in the ordinary
course of business and were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of
or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer of
the securities and were not acquired and are not held in connection with
or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect.

Signature

After reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief,
I certify that the information set forth in this statement with respect
to it is true, complete and correct.

Date: February 06, 2004


By: W. Whitney George, Vice President



  


Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 03:54 AM EST
Ah, but how long and at what price did they buy those shares?

Lotta folks bought in at under $10, and it looks good for the fund if a group
of shares it bought is 50% above the price they were bought at.

Even if they HAVE dropped by a third from their high....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 03:55 AM EST
google result: http://www.roycefunds.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Fund is managed by Jonathan Cohen
Authored by: Marc Duflot on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:17 AM EST
The ROYCE TECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND is managed by Jonathan Cohen .

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G
Authored by: hardcode57 on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:40 AM EST
Over the last month it appears that their SCO holdings, as a % of their total
holdings, has decreased from 7.1% to 5.4%. Less than a resounding vote of
confidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand)
Authored by: thoreauputic on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 06:01 AM EST
Nathan Hand has written another letter to Darl McBride on behalf of the
community:

"A Proposal of Truce Between the Linux Community and The SCO Group"

http://www3.sys-con.com/banners/linuxworld336.cfm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 06:06 AM EST

Im just curious, but NYTimes has an article about recent computer hacking by the republicans of their democratic colleagues computers and systems, and im wondering if these are technically violations of the DMCA. If the documents obtained were then stored in secondary storage isnt this a copywrite violation? Furthermore does the hacking represent an illegal use of unauthorized data? Shouldn't this be followed by serious prosecution under the DMCA?

Article In NY Times

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO - We will sue end users
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:05 AM EST
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1152767

SCO's director of public relations, Blake Stowell, told vnunet.com: "I can
tell you that the company plans to hold to the claims that it made at Comdex on
18 November.

"I'm giving us until at least the eighteenth."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody Still Loves SCO - Making Life Easier
Authored by: jricher on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000090630404000174/scox1.txt
TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/3grhd

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000090630404000174/0000906304-04-
000174-index.htm
TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/yvaek



---
I Am Not a Lawyer! -- Frankly I'm Innocent!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are: 13G, S-3, 8K, 10K, x11, z80, A4?
Authored by: tgf on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:14 AM EST
IANAFW (Financial Whizzkid).
All these different Codes for these SEC filings
has sent my UK head spinning. Could someone post
up an idiots guide or a link to one, please?

Ok, so I was joking with the last three:
X11 - Unix / Linux Windowing standard.
Z80 - 8bit CPU (eg Sinclair Spectrum, CP/M).
A4 - European paper size, Audi car, and steam
locomotive speed record holder (4468 - Mallard).

But info on the others would be useful, thanks.

Tim

---
Oxymoron of the day:
Microsoft Innovation

[ Reply to This | # ]

tepid on SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
this analy st thinks SCO has long term potential. On page two of her article, she says "...Novell has made public claims that SCO had not purchased the copyrights to USV. However, the SCO Group has since produced documentation indicating that Novell did in fact sell the UNIX copyrights to SCO.". Did I miss something, or did she?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: new analyst spies SCO
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST
Analyst Melanie Hollands (IT Manager's Journal) is cautiously optimistic about SCO's financials.

Reading her analysis, it seems to me that she's on the right track, but unfortunately that track never intersected with Groklaw.com.

There is a feedback section on the page. I suggest we help Melanie with the facts, starting with SCO's own words from the various 10Ks etc.

Melanie comes across as a nice, smart lady, and clearly she is interested in the details rather than just the press releases:

"While the stock has been quite volatile recently, management seems positive about their current business, legal team and legal strategy, and prospects for significant license and earnings growth in fiscal year 2004. However, I don't consider a "positive tone" from any company's management to be a prudent basis for an investment decision, since such optimism frequently turns out to be little more than that."

So, in typical Grokker fashion, let's politely provide her with the links and facts that she may have missed when compiling her article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: the semantic games continue
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST
First it was Kevin McBride and his "... in a few days, or no less than a week" fooled-you-again statement.

Now it's Stowell's turn to have a giggle with some language games:

"SCO's director of public relations, Blake Stowell, told vnunet.com: "I can tell you that the company plans to hold to the claims that it made at Comdex on 18 November.

"I'm giving us until at least the eighteenth."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody Still Loves SCO - Royce and Associates' 13G
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:54 AM EST
This person is obviously from a different planet:

http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/management/04/02/15/2152249.shtml?tid=10
3&tid=85

Here is my favorite quote:

"On Jan. 20, 2004, the SCO Group filed a slander lawsuit
against Novell Inc. in the Utah State Court. In October
2003, Novell had attempted to make copyright filings on a
number of versions of UNIX. In addition, Novell has made
public claims that SCO had not purchased the copyrights to
USV. However, the SCO Group has since produced
documentation indicating that Novell did in fact sell the
UNIX copyrights to SCO. Consequently, Novell could
potentially be investigated by the SEC for making
incorrect statements that constitute material disclosures,
which could have (possibly did) impacted the stock prices
of both SCO Group and Novell. "

Seems SCO is winning...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oz & NZ - a new take on the legal side.
Authored by: Nick_UK on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 12:40 PM EST

Here is a new take on the farce - and a good one too.

www.n zherald.co.nz

Hard to bring this stuff to light here, so sorry it's off-topic a bit.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: FYI, logout
Authored by: phrostie on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 01:29 PM EST
PJ, got logged out several times today so far. still not sure what is causing
it.

no crisis, no worries.
:-)

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • OT: FYI, logout - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 07:35 PM EST
  • OT: FYI, logout - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:33 PM EST
OT: Where is AMD?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:21 PM EST
Intel has put up money for the OSS legal defense fund... but where is AMD?

This is rather odd, as Intel actually has less to lose from Linux getting nuked.
I think it is safe to say that so far virtually all Opteron processors sold are
running Linux, as there is no win32 for Opteron yet and there's no point in
buying a 64-bit chip for a plain vanilla 32-bit OS. If Linux were shut down,
AMD would potentially lose their Opteron supercomputer market (except for Sun,
and Sun might have a vested interest in bucking Opteron if it were stunted a bit
by a Linux collapse... and IBM has it's own 64-bit offering...).

It's odd that AMD has not put any money up or said anything about this. It
could be that AMD just recently turned a profit for the first time in two years
and is not in a strong position to throw money around, but at least a statement
of support would be nice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nathans truce and civility
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST
thank you nathan for your attempt.whether i agree or not doesnt matter.it is
always essential that there is a peace maker.history has taught us that


---
br3n

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody Still Loves SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:27 PM EST
Hey, lots of people do; most of their stockholders ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Light relief
Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST
A random google search for SCO stuff returned an amusing cartoon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • OT: Light relief - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 06:53 PM EST
OT: New Darl quotes
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 05:23 PM EST
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/money/2850597/detail.html

Darl McBride said his company, SCO, is Andy's main target. He said the virus
itself is from the Linux community. Linux was developed as a free and open
operating system, and now it's becoming a viable alternative to Microsoft's
Windows.

"We've been living with attacks now for over a year," McBride said.

Billions in licensing fees may hang in the balance, and SCO wants its cut. But
Linux users passionately want to protect what they think is free. SCO, for its
part, well it remains undeterred.

"These kinds of attacks, if anything, just give us more resolve to fight
for what we think is the right thing," McBride said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Brewing GPL battleground: XFree86
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
XFree86, the group that has been doing the video software for Linux and Unix installations for a good many years, has changed its license, requiring distributors to list the names of its contributors. As I understand it, this goes against the GPL. I'm unclear why, however.

As a result, Mandrake is not likely to distribute the latest XFree86 version, numbered 4.4, in the upcoming Mandrake 10. I understand SuSE, Red Hat, Debian and Open BSD may do the same thing as Mandrake. They will all stick with the GPL-compliant 4.3 version of XFree86.

As I understand it, it will be legal to download XFree86 4.4, compile it and install it yourself. But it seems you won't get it precompiled and installable with Linux distros anymore. (Well, we'll see what the other distros decide.)

There are a couple of alternatives to XFree86 being worked on, but they are not yet mature. One of them is Freedesktop.org.

This may be another demonstration of the power of the GPL. Linux distros may no longer include the latest XFree86 in the future because it may not be GPL compliant, possibly relegating XFree86 to the Linux dustbin as the alternatives mature.

I'll be curious to see what the non-GPL vendors do. I was surprised at Open BSD's reaction to XFree86's license, since they're not GPL, nor are the other BSD's.

Would non-GPL vendors have to move away from XFree86 for the purpose of compatibility in their Linux modules, if the Linux community eventually abandons XFree86?

Richard Stallman may have seen this coming a couple of years ago when he wrote "The X Windows Trap"

-------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

The issue is GPL compatibility
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST
The issue is not whether XFree is GPL or not (it never has
been), but that the new license terms are expressly GPL
incompatible whereas the X/Mit license has been compatible.
This would be the reason why distros may choose not to
include 4.4.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When is Judge Wells going to rule ?
Authored by: Pres on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 08:22 PM EST
It has been over a week since the Feb 6 hearing so I am getting anxious about
Judge Wells ruling on compliance wtih the Motion to Compel.

Is there significance to the delay ?



[ Reply to This | # ]

Cohen named as insider in my September complaint to the SEC
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:19 PM EST
He was recommending SCOG at that time, and something seemed suspicious.

Now it looks like he might have been selling SCOG from his fund at the same time
that he was recommending it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Anyone Else Excited for Tomorrow?
Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST
I dunno about all of you, but I am expecting a ruling tomorrow. The suspense is
_killing_ me! Argh!

---
Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant

[ Reply to This | # ]

A stock analysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST
A very superficial and hopelessly inadequate analysis of the SCOX stock. Note that a whole bunch of people have already pointed her at groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OTTT : Diamonds for PJ
Authored by: Greebo on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:01 AM EST
Shame this got announced a few days too late, but could there be any better way for us all to show our appreciation of PJ than to give her this as a present ?!

---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not just Royce and Associates'
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 08:31 PM EST
According to companies fillings,
Butterymarch financial <a
href="http://www.batterymarch.com/">http://www.batterymarch.com/<
;/a> snatched over 290,700 shares of SCOX in December, as well as Krevlin
Advisers, LLC of 650 Madison Ave., 26th floor, NY, NY, 212 610 9055 picked up
303,000 shares. And Oppenheimer Funds got 143,300 shares in December.
I'm not saying SCOX is good, Im just wondering why those companies bought SCOX.
And those guys were not covering shorts, they actually bought stock in December
(but they might have sold it by now).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )