|
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
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 03:55 AM EST |
google result: http://www.roycefunds.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand) - Authored by: thoreauputic on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 06:38 AM EST
- OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand) - Authored by: jmc on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 06:47 AM EST
- OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand) - Authored by: Greebo on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 07:30 AM EST
- OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand) - Authored by: Peter Smith on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST
- Poor choice of title - Authored by: jgb on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:29 AM EST
- OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST
- OT - Another Open Letter to Darl (Nathan Hand) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:03 AM EST
- Good day for a hanging... - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:07 AM EST
- Even more OT: Any way to stop auto-refresh in Konqueror? - Authored by: Jude on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST
- Fight FUD with truth! - Authored by: swengr on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 12:24 PM EST
- Nathans Open Letter - Please Look Again Closely - Authored by: stevem on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:53 PM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- What are: 13G, S-3, 8K, 10K, x11, z80, A4? - Authored by: iMeowbot on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:24 AM EST
- www.acronymfinder.com - Authored by: johan on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:15 AM EST
- What are: 13G, S-3, 8K, 10K, x11, z80, A4? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST
- What are: 13G, S-3, 8K, 10K, x11, z80, A4? - Authored by: TonyWB on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: jmc on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:52 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:59 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: bobn on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:12 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: pooky on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 11:28 AM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: crs17 on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 03:21 PM EST
- tepid on SCO - Authored by: linonut on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 09:53 PM EST
- Don't be so harsh - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 03:51 AM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- The FTC is involved? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 12:50 PM EST
- Quote DB - Authored by: kberrien on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST
- Quote DB - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
- Quote DB - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 07:37 PM EST
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 16 2004 @ 04:27 PM EST |
Hey, lots of people do; most of their stockholders ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|