|
Nasdaq Sends SCO Delisting Notice |
|
Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST
|
Nasdaq noticed that SCO failed to timely file its 10K, and it has sent them a delisting notice. This is a notice of potential delisting, as SCO's press release urgently lets us know. The Dow Jones Newswires carried the news. Bob Mims' article in the Salt Lake Tribune has a quote from Laura Didio, that SCO expert, and Blake Stowell, who always tells us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:
"'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.'"In a brief statement issued Wednesday, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell confirmed only that the delays came 'because management and the company's independent auditors continue to examine certain matters related to the issuance of shares of the company's common stock pursuant to its equity compensation plans.'
"SCO plans to file its belated report 'as soon as possible . . . when its analysis is complete.'" I'd say if investors are only starting to be concerned at this late date, they haven't been paying attention. Not that the stock market makes any sense to me anyhow, so don't go by me. People invest, as far as I can see, based on nothing more logical than a wish and a prayer, or worse. [Note there are some updated additions to the story since it was first posted this morning.]
Here's a chart for those of you who understand them. All I see is an arrow pointing down. Mims' article includes the what-happens-next info. I gather SCO has a week to request a meeting, and if they fail to do that, they will be delisted in 9 days. Rob Enderle shows up too:
"Rob Enderle, of the Enderle Group, said SCO's filing difficulties are just a glimpse into 'a very complex' situation for the Utah company, which not only faces a tough market for its Unix products and the heavy costs of prolonged litigation against IBM and others, but is dealing with 'turmoil' inside its parent company, The Canopy Group." I can't help but wonder, is he foreshadowing that SCO's circumstances are now so "complex" they would rather not be listed, in full view of a lot of eyeballs? Time will indicate what is what, and I'd rather not guess. Reuters reports that the company says it will request the meeting. And here's an example showing that such a request can keep a company listed. The US federal securities law involved, as Vnunet's article points out, is Market Place Rule 4310(c)(14). Here are the Nasdaq rules [PDF] Interestingly, it also has this quotation from SCO: "However, SCO admitted that 'there can be no assurance that the Panel will grant the company's request for continued listing'." So, SCOXE as of February 18, and then we'll see. Hmm. How about EX-SCO, instead? That has a pleasant ring to it, and it uses the same letters. Motley Fool has a bleak outlook: "SCO Group, under the leadership of bellicose CEO Darl McBride, has turned into nothing but a lawsuit and a prayer.
"The Unix biz that was a foundation and might have provided some life support is simply withering away to nothing. Its universally reviled efforts to strong-arm Linux licensing fees out of the rest of the world? It turns out shaking your fist at the code fiends behind the world's biggest cooperative software project makes a lot more enemies than it does money. The latest numbers were awful. Revenues at half of the prior-year quarter's. Losses tripled. Yet McBride had the audacity to claim that 'Fourth Quarter achievements demonstrate continued progress at SCO.'" The reliable Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has more intriguing details, from SCO sources: "'My understanding is that this is related to the company's year 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Program and possibly other items related to the company's compensation program,' an SCO source said. 'We believe that we can get this resolved in short order.'
"Another source close to SCO said that in part the questions about the stock purchase plan had to do with matters related to stock issued to Canopy Group, SCO's parent company." He has more wisdom from the remarkable Ms. Didio, who says unless they are able to resolve this, things are looking grim for SCO. He also reports on reactions from LinuxWorld: At LinuxWorld in Boston, as news slowly spread in the morning crowds of SCO's plight, the mood could best be called cheerful.
"'It's about time,' said one midlevel executive from a hardware vendor. 'This has just been getting in everybody's way, and if they go under, maybe we can finally get back to work instead of worrying with this junk.'" I note that the biographical info on David Boies in this article about a speech he's giving in Florida today never mentions the SCO case. Maybe that is because it also quotes the Dade County Bar Association president as saying, ". . . David consistently demonstrates you can be a strong, highly successful advocate for your clients while at the same time acting with dignity, decency and courtesy toward your opponent." Excuse me, but perhaps I may be permitted to remind us all that Judge Wells' most recent order asked the parties to be nicer to each other, with more "candid cooperation", I think was the phrase, and those of us who have watched this case daily knew exactly what was meant. I gather the distancing begins. But no one I know will ever forget that Boies Schiller & Flexner represented the SCO Group, or the way they did it, and we didn't find them so very decent, dignified or courteous. I expect SCO to be in paragraph one of all of their obituaries someday. The firm will never get the stench off. Just my opinion, of course. But I bet you can take it to the bank, as they say. I believe BS&F knows what a bank is. It's where you put your money when you decide not to take common stock shares from your client as payment after all. Here's my favorite quote of the day, however, from a poster on Slashdot:
"Were it not for /. clearing up the FUD, their stock would probably still be flying high on rampant speculation." : ) Meanwhile, here is
SCO's press release about the Nasdaq notice:
The SCO Group, Inc. Receives Notice From Nasdaq Regarding Potential Delisting and Intends to Appeal
LINDON, Utah, Feb 17, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), announced today that on February 16, 2005, the Company received a notice from the staff of The Nasdaq Stock Market indicating that the Company is subject to potential delisting from The Nasdaq SmallCap Market for failure to comply with Nasdaq's requirements to file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004 in a timely fashion, as required under Market Place Rule 4310(c)(14). Receipt of the notice does not result in immediate delisting of the Company's Common Stock.
Nasdaq stated that, unless the Company requests a hearing on Nasdaq's delisting notice, the Company's securities will be delisted from the Nasdaq SmallCap Market at the opening of business on February 25, 2005. As of the opening of business on February 18, 2005, an "E" will be appended to the end of the Company's trading symbol for its securities. Therefore, commencing on February 18, 2005, the trading symbol for the Company's common stock will be changed from "SCOX" to "SCOXE".
The Company expects to make a request for a hearing with the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to appeal the Nasdaq staff's determination. This request will stay the delisting pending the hearing and a determination by the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel. There can be no assurance that the Panel will grant the Company's request for continued listing.
The Company has been unable to file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004 because it continues to examine certain matters related to the issuance of shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to its equity compensation plans. The Company is working to resolve these matters as soon as possible and expects to file its Form 10-K upon completion of its analysis.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains forward looking statements related to SCO's intention to make a timely request for a hearing with the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel and file the Form 10-K when its analysis is complete. SCO wishes to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements, including the Company being delisted following an unsuccessful hearing with the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel or the Company failing to file its Form 10-K.
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com. SCO, and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. So, their press releases still say they have 4,000 developers. Where?
|
|
Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:04 AM EST |
If there are any...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:07 AM EST |
Title says it all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO files new lawsuit - Authored by: TonyW on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST
- Micro$oft Download Site Checks for Wine... - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST
- European Parliament votes to scrap software patent text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST
- Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST
- Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:31 PM EST
- Typo - Authored by: ogre on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Typo - Resellers and Developers - Authored by: frk3 on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:18 PM EST
- Ay yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 08:54 PM EST
- GCC 3.4.3 - Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST
- Why does Microsoft need a SCO license? - Authored by: ssavitzky on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:43 PM EST
- BBC Patent coverage... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:24 PM EST
- Bill Gates interview on ABC, quotes: - Authored by: Franki on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST
- Mass. Bends Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST
- 2005 SCOSource pricing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:27 PM EST
- Linux fan concedes Microsoft is more secure - Authored by: Bill R on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:06 PM EST
- LinuxWorld.com.au: "Linux desktops have internal role at Cisco" - Authored by: warner on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 09:17 PM EST
- ZDNet.co.uk: "Patent restart request ratified" - Authored by: warner on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 09:33 PM EST
- GaDuGi is back! - Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:10 AM EST
- SCOX has died - Authored by: PLCF on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 09:42 AM EST
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:11 AM EST |
I am shocked, shocked I say to hear about financial shenanigans going on at a
Canopy Portfolio company like The SCO Group![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:11 AM EST |
I could not believe my eyes. SCOs press release actually contains the following
sentence:
"There can be no assurance that the Panel will grant the Company's request
for continued listing."
Wow, when have you EVER heard of an SCO press release with any truth like this?
Wouldn't it usually say "...this is just a blip that we will
resolve..."?
Times, they are a changin'[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:13 AM EST |
So, their press releases still say they have 4,000 developers.
Where?
Well, in all fairness... that stuff is just a standard blurb that
they copy onto the bottom of every press release.
I've even seen an IBM
press release where they'd forgotten it.. the press release ended
thusly:
About IBM
[INSERT OUR STANDARD TEXT]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:13 AM EST |
Hmm, aren't there provisions in the SEC rules for innocent companies which,
through no fault of their own, get taken over by people who don't understand how
to cook the books the way their predecessors did?
Why can't the government do something!
But seriously, that bit about:
"because management and the company's independent auditors continue to
examine certain matters related to the issuance of shares of the company's
common stock pursuant to its equity compensation plans."
... can only mean that while their founders are suing them over their
willy-nilly issuance of stock (and since their accountant quit) they really
aren't in a position to tell everyone about the details.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ak on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:17 AM EST |
SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000
resellers
That is another lie from the Yarro/McBride-gang.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:20 AM EST |
So, their press releases still say they have 4,000 developers.
Where?
IBM have been asked to deliver the names of 3000 individuals that
have been doing development work on AIX and Dynix. Given that SCO believe that
they own AIX and Dynix (and Linux and others), 4000 developers is probably only
a portion of the number of full time developers that SCO believes it has working
for it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST |
For a different perspective on SCO's accounting problems see section
1. U.
of my complaint to the SEC.
Steve Stites'
letter to the SEC
--------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I disagree with the press release. - Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:30 AM EST
- Too late. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:38 AM EST
- kudos to Steve for a herculean effort. - Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST
- Outstanding work - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:16 PM EST
- I disagree with the press release. - Authored by: FunKiFyD on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:21 PM EST
- About 18 months - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:24 PM EST
- Both Sides Now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Re: I disagree with the press release. - Authored by: ram on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:45 PM EST
- I disagree with the press release. - Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST
- SEC complaint is spell binding! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST
- I don't know. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST
- SCO's Unix timeline graph non accessible - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:33 PM EST
- Wow, great work. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST
- Phenominal work - Authored by: MadScientist on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:54 PM EST
- Corrections :-) - Authored by: MadScientist on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:16 PM EST
- Small omission - Authored by: MadScientist on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:38 PM EST
- Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:09 PM EST
- also - Authored by: MadScientist on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:42 PM EST
- yes, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:12 PM EST
- yes, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:30 PM EST
- Changed document? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 03:10 PM EST
- perhaps - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:14 PM EST
- A small typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 06:24 PM EST
- An addition to your amazing letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 07:57 PM EST
- Thank you - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 08:56 PM EST
- PHENOMENAL! Excellent sequence, presentation, and clarity - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 09:14 PM EST
- I disagree with the press release. - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:34 PM EST
- SCO does not claim ownership of IBM code - Authored by: darkonc on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:41 AM EST
- WOW. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 02:50 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:28 AM EST |
They have a "network of resellers and developers". Nothing was said
about how many of those developers are hired by SCO themselves. The resellers
certainly aren't SCO employees.
By the same count, the number of people in the "Linux network of
developers" must reach tens of millions. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ijramirez on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST |
In another thread a couple of weeks ago I predicted that the new Canopy
administration will remove SCO top management in order to reach some form of
negotiated settlemnt with IBM. I think this even will open the door for Canopy's
new management to remove SCOs management for failing to meet some important
responsibilities.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:32 AM EST |
Anyone else notice in the press release that they no longer claim to own UNIX
(or even mention UNIX at all in respect to the products or services they
provide)? In fact, the ONLY mention of UNIX is that it's a registered tradmark
of the Open Group (which they shouldn't have to say unless they've mentioned it
elsewhere).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AntiFUD on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:34 AM EST |
1. What are the effects on Institutional/Fund Manager holders of delisted
stocks? Are such stocks still readily marketable? Would a holder have to make
any sort of provision?
2. Am I vaguely correct, in my belief, that (recent?) changes in accounting
rules require all corporations account (as a charge against the Profit and Loss)
for the inherent 'value' (i.e. the difference between the option price and the
then current market price times the number of shares in the option grant -
whether vested [partially, fully or not] - at the time of such option grant),
and that such 'value' be treated as part of the recipient's (employee /director
/other) taxable compensation [with provision therefor made where appropriate]?
3. Are all incentive compensation /bonus /stock option plans subject, in the US
at least, to the ERISA acts, and are they not required to include specific
wording in such plans wrt the employees rights under the provisions of ERISA?
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cheros on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:38 AM EST |
[disclaimer: personal opinion only]
The stock is only trending downwards as far as I can see on NASDAQ.
A company heading for a delisting is AFAIK for investors as a sinking ship is to
rats (no disrespect intended). As SCO have been given notice it's evident they
won't be able to draw matters out as they've managed in court so far.
However, I'm not sure re-listing will not just result in more investors
a-jumping from this point onwards, but we've been there before.
Logic doesn't come into it, apparently.
= Ch =[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:39 AM EST |
Last year, SCO was making headlines with their sensational initiative, SCO
Marketplace. Since then, no news.
Do they intend to launch SCO Marketplace in 2005, or will they wait for their
big court win against IBM, or their bankrupcy, whichever comes first ?
Will their slight accounting problem have any impact on the Legend product
release ???
So many questions, so few phone conferences ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST |
At 11:22AM ET: 4.049 Down 0.251 (5.84%) ...
The SCO limbo dance has begun.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nivuahc on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:47 AM EST |
The Company has been unable to file its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2004 because it continues to examine certain matters
related to the issuance of shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to its
equity compensation plans. The Company is working to resolve these
matters as soon as possible and expects to file its Form 10-K upon completion of
its analysis. (emphasis mine)
Now where have I heard
that phrase before?
hmmmmmmmmmmmm --- My Doctor says I
have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand. It's not like... Hey! Look at that
chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:59 AM EST |
Didn't their logo used to be...
"The power of UNIX" ???
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:15 PM EST |
One possibility maybe is that all the noise and action in SCO was to put out
enough fud while the principles involved enriched themselves through bonus's and
compensation plans, and moved canopy inside money about, so that years later
when SCO finally dissapeared, they could say "well, we were buried by IBM, blah
blah", and, after all, nobody would care about the finances and past doings of a
company by then buried under a judgement favorable to IBM while they are long
gone on their new yachts and porshes; kind of like in the "producers", where the
idea that nobody remembers or cares about the money lost in a "failed
play".
Similar to Max's misjudgement, instead SCO had a comic hit on it's
hands, and similarly perhaps it could not live up to the scrutiny as a
result!
Don't be stupid, be a smarty, join the Yarro party!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:26 PM EST |
"...This request will stay the delisting pending the hearing and a
determination by the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel...." This move
allows SCO more time to collect their mountains of evidence and present it to
judge Kimball in time to snach victory from the jaws of defeat; maintain their
listing; and return to profitability selling their UNIX monoply.
"...There can be no assurance that the Panel will grant the Company's
request for continued listing." Unfortunately, there can be no assurance
that their plan will work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:27 PM EST |
Well, if you check the chart on 3 or 6 months, you won't see the same.
But if you check the chart on 1 or 2 years, you will see a crash :)
So these charts are really misleading if taken out of context.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:51 PM EST |
So would this keep that Canadian company that got all that stock from selling it
off slowly, like it has been?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST |
Requesting comment from investors!
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=c
ald&sid=1600684464&mid=237453[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST |
Where oh where is Mean Mister Mustard ("3M") in all these frenetic
activities? Have there been any Darl sightings reported? Has anyone seen a
cement mixer pouring cement into SCO's basement?
Enquiring minds want to KNO.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST |
So, here is the ultimate question that I have not seen anyone ask, or answer.
What happens if they are delisted? Obviously there stock is not worthless, so
what is the potential downfall other than that people might not be able to buy
and sell their stock as easily (again, I'm guessing) anyone know the real
answer?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MacUser on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST |
On how many fronts can they fight simultaneously? IBM, Autozone, Red Hat,
possibly Daimler Chrysler again ... and hot on the heels of the Canopy strife, a
Nasdaq appeal. Not forgetting many, many lines of IBM code to process.
Let’s hope that the good folks at SCOX(E) do not neglect to dot a single i or
cross a single t in all the legal engagements that await them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST |
After all, they are lying as fast as they can!
It is tough to cook the books
again and again, eventually you lose track of the lies and it all comes
unravelled.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we seek to
deceive." - Shakespeare [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST |
As the penguin said 'goodbye and thanks for the fish'
Maybe I misquoted someone but I have a blank for now
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Douglas Adams - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:48 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Comments by Didiot AND Pretenderle (how is his surname pronouced anyways? Is it
En-der-l or En-der-lay?) and they didnt try to blame this on evil Commie Linux
hackers.
Wonders never cease (yes, Im still annoyed at Enderle for his Firefox FUD
article).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST |
It's time to buy the red dress (if you haven't already). And if you have it,
it's time to send it to the dry cleaners.
Unfortunately, it's still not time
to wear it, but we hope that day is coming very soon.
MSS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nathan.sidwell on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST |
SCO's most recent 10K filing
(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465904007616/a04-3543_110q
.htm) indicates their annual product revenue is around $40M. That's more than
an order of magnitude too small to support 4,000 developers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:38 PM EST |
How will Baystar sell their remaining stock if SCO is de-listed? Will they be
stuck holding the bag? Will they simply write it off as a loss? Will they sue
SCO for failing to maintain value in the stock by untimely filings?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:45 PM EST |
As a non-stockmarket type, this sounds like a bad thing, but given that TSCOG
seems to play by a uniquely different set of rules than the logically thinking
world, could this be part of the plan?
What does delisting do to SCO?
Is there some advantage to them by it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:52 PM EST |
I would assume if they are delisted from Nasdaq they will go to OTC status. That
it most cases is a death sentence for your stock price, although most delistings
happen on Nasdaq because the price falls below $1/share.
Here's what catches my eye though:
"...continues to examine certain matters related to the issuance of shares
of the Company's common stock pursuant to its equity compensation
plans..."
Certain matters? Uh, are they saying that the issuance of their common stock ran
afoul of STOCKHOLDER APPROVED compensation plans? Uh oh...
-pooky
---
If at First You Don't Succeed, Skydiving Isn't for You.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:10 PM EST |
"'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.'"
After SCO gets interned 6ft deep I can see Laura's next headline. "This is
clearly the end of SCO"
Thank goodness we have such sharp minded analysts to clear the record for us.
P.L.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YMHEE_BCEX on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:27 PM EST |
where
Darl was pleased to say he has continued to further our business objectives in
the fourth quarter and ended the year on an upbeat note.
Since he and Bert
Young knew (or had to know) that independent auditors were at the same time
examining certain matters and believed that the problems were serious enough to
warrant the delay of 10K filing - seems to me as a criminal offense! Where are
security lawyers when you need them! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 03:12 PM EST |
Losing the NASDAQ listing is not the only problem the SCOXE financial types
face. The SEC also looks askance at companies that fail to file in a timely
manner. It is just that they delegate the enforcement responsibility to NASDAQ.
Once SCOXE is delisted, then the SEC takes over. And that will not be pretty
for SCOXE.
And the underlying issue is that their auditors will not sign off on the
financials as they stand. So either SCOXE changes their reporting (for the
worse, naturally) or they find a new auditor. And that would require public
disclosure of the details of the dispute with the auditor.
There is also the possibility that the auditor wants to issue a special opinion
that "there is no assurance that SCOXE is a continuing concern."
Finally the timing of this is a problem for those mutual funds and banks holding
the stock. They have to write the value of the stock down sharply to reflect
"subsequent events" to 31 December. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chris_bloke on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 03:24 PM EST |
Just routine from the look of it, SCO have filed an 8K
on the NASDAQ notice.
You can
see the filings the SEC has received with
this search at the SEC site.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 03:29 PM EST |
But no one I know will ever forget that Boies Schiller & Flexner
represented the SCO Group, or the way they did it [...]The firm will never get
the stench off. [...] I believe BS&F knows what a bank is. It's where you
put your money when you decide not to take common stock shares from your client
as payment after all.
Perhaps we shouldn't look at Boies too
harshly.
Remember that these guys probably did more to take down SCO and to
help IBM's case than anyone in the world (both through their almost laughably
poor performance, and the insistance on large cash payments that you
cite).
In that light, I'd say the F/OSS community should be celebrating
Boies in the same way that the Soviet nuclear program might appreciate Ethel and
Julius Rosenberg and how the Brittish consider Benedict
Arnold a patriot.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 03:38 PM EST |
Not to celebrate too early or anything like that, but I can't help wondering why
the phrase "not with a bang, but with a whimper" keeps coming to
mind.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:49 PM EST |
This is just wild conjecture - I've no evidence to support this
theory....
but suppose that SCOX came to the realisation that they had
one or two financial skeletons in the closet. We've had theories about what I've
seen called "pump and dump" schemes relating to SCO stock.
If SCO were
looking at their filing, then realising with horror that the latest submission
is going to present a picture that is entirely unflattering to SCO themselves,
would it be possible that a de-listing would save them from the need to publicly
air those dealings [or at least delay for the short term?]
Can someone
who understands the significance of this explain to us a bit about what
information is being witheld, what a typical report of this type should contain,
and if anyone is feeling brave, to speculate on what might be there or what the
motive might be for delay or concealment?
Conspiracy theorist I might
be, but something tells me that SCO might actually want to be
de-listed...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:14 PM EST |
That SCOX stock revives better than Lazerus. Could be good for the gamblers. Buy
AM when low, sell PM when high.
:)
Disclaimer
This does not constitute financial advice, it is for discussion purposes only.
BTW Pooky has a sig about skydiving, Darl may have taken the golden parachute
that opens on impact.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST |
It seems like a day like today would be a prime opportunity for us to take
center stage. I see reporters looking for comment all over the place. PJ can't
we go more mainstream when news like this comes out? It seems like we should be
more visible among the business press.
Your thoughts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:47 PM EST |
I'm wondering if the trouble here is a result of the Canopy lawsuit and the
Noorda's wish to have Yarro, Mott, and Christensen removed from the boards of
every Canopy company?
Even as dimwitted as SCOX management can be perceived to be, I can't see them
goofing up so badly on the financial front to cause this. No one *wants* to be
de-listed and bring SEC investigators to their doorstep. Under SARBOX, any way
you slice it Darl will end up with a large share of the blame for any financial
misdoings, so I can't see this as intentional.
What I can see is investigators pouring over SCOX books on a moments notice and
finding perhaps an improper equitiy compensation plan set up by the board, i.e.
Yarro and Mott. IBM needs a court order to do that, you can bet your life
Canopy can do it whenever they want to (i.e. Mean Mr. Mustard). That might cause
a few issues...
-pooky
---
If at First You Don't Succeed, Skydiving Isn't for You.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:48 PM EST |
I'm guessing this means that they had 4000 people register as developers at
some time or other, who haven't explictly asked to be delisted.
If they
actually asked all 4000 'developers' to renew their status, I'm guessing that
they'd drop a digit (or two).
(not like we didn't all know
already) --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:50 PM EST |
href="http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2005/mft05021727.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&a
mp;logvisit=y&npu=y&bounce=y&bounce2=y"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 06:34 PM EST |
One could justifiably believe SCO, is about to implode in a massive puff of
smoke.
My guess is that SCO will get de-listed because it can't meet its filing
obligations. This in turn implies SCO already has serious problems regarding
its
cash flow.
But until this happens, there is always the potential for SCO to rise
phoenix-like from these ashes. This doesn't look likely but is not impossible
depending on if there are other organisations willing to find ways to keep SCO
afloat.
Should SCO collapse and go bankrupt before the lawsuit ends, there is the
question of SCO's assets and 'claimed' assets. Also SCO would duck any
potential
payout to IBM if IBM were to win its counter claims.
Lets also assume that Canopy have assessed the probability of IBM winning their
countersuit, and decided it is highly probable. Then if SCO collapses before a
pro IBM judgement, Canopy may be protected from having to cover a large part of
the money awarded to IBM through its counter claims to SCO's lawsuit.
I can see a significant value to Canopy to collapse SCO right now.
Endgame.
Just my 0.02c worth on this entertaining saga.
Cheers Doug Marker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GrueMaster on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 06:36 PM EST |
Here is my theory on the 10K delays, the past, present, and possible future fo
SCO. This is based on current facts, plus a lot of speculative "super
glue".
Given that past 10k's have been filed very near the end of their deadline (90
days from EOFY), and with the current shake up in Canopy, I would venture to
guess that a re-evaluation of the books is taking place due to Mr. Yarro &
company's questionable holdings.
Now, looking at the history of events in virtual fly on the wall mode (new
feature in Linux), one could guess that at a minimum, Mr. Yarro probably sucked
more stocks into his coffers through virtual funds generated by spurious
incentive bonuses he created from Canopy. Using these, he could now put himself
in a position to "buy out" the Nordias, in effect using their money to
buy them out. Thus, since the snake is out of the basket (as it were), there
needs to be a top down overhaul of the books. I would also assume that other
companies with the good fortune to call Canopy "Dad" will be going
through the same process.
Taking this a step further, by purchasing stock during the pre-lawsuit
timeframe, he may have planned to sue, but Mr. Love wouldn't play along. I
can't remember the reasons for his leaving, but I do remember hering about him
telling Darl not to go there (suing over Montery). If I were put in Mr. Love's
position, I would walk (looks better than being fired).
Now, in comes a puppet that the master can manipulate (Darl), even subtly.
Boom, stock goes way up for a time, hit's it's peak, at which time he sells.
With the procedes and the bonuses for SCO's performance, buys Canopy stock, and,
"hey Ray, Can I buy out your shares? I have the money."
Sounds a lot like a movie, but where to movie writers get these ideas in the
first place?
As to the future, well, the way I see it, everything will come crumbling down
very rapidly, around fall I believe. Unless IBM and/or the Nordia's shake some
ripe fruit from the tree.
I think in reviewing the accounting records, they will find more information wrt
Mr. Yarro, and I think that the Canopy sysadmin (Mr. Pemrose) probably had to
give full access to the companies email server + archive, which I'd be willing
to bet shows he had a personal stake in this. The fact that he didn't alert
Wiley, Newbold, or Jackson (as determined by their continued preserverance)
suggests that they were not entirely privy to the full events.
Of course, I hope that I am utterly wrong on this last point, as it is not my
intent on tarnishing Mr. Pemrose name. This is only speculative ramblings of my
unconsious.
GrueMaster
There's no business like show business, but there are several businesses like
accounting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 08:07 PM EST |
When did the news hit the wires? Was it between 11 and 12
this morning? Why do I ask?
The volume was still fairly light and I don't
read much into it but when funds
are required by their portfolio to sell, they may have to do it on a market
order. This can make for interesting trading day to day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 08:34 PM EST |
My first job out of the university was in a three-man high tech startup
subsidiary of a larger family owned corporation. There were three sets of books,
mostly done by hand buy the way: tax, bank, and operations. The tax books were
kept to minimize profits and thus taxes. The bank books were kept to maximize
profits for lines of credit. The operational books were to actually run the
company.
Fast forward thirty years. As president of a smallish medium tech corporation we
kept one set of audited books. Still, out of necessity, we were able to spin a
bit in the margins.
Auditors in the past have usually have two main gripes: paper trail problems,
and how certain transactions are handled for the purpose of reporting income,
mostly for tax purposes. Some auditors assume that the company is not run by a
pack of thieves so they often have narrow vision. Profitable companies want to
minimize paper profits to minimize taxes. Not exactly cooking the books but just
a slight warming. Worst case is that sometime in the future you have to restate
earning upwards after being shot down in tax court.
The long trail of fraud culminating in the Enron disaster taught a lesson about
looking into the capital accounts. Unlike profitable companies wanting to
minimize their income to minimize taxes, some unprofitable companies want to
create profits where none exist to pump their stock. This fraud is a bit more
tricky. Auditors now have a more pressing gripe: transactions that have an
impact on capital accounts, thus the share price, and more directly on
shareholders, particularly minority shareholders.
In the real world the auditors usually sit down with management and tell them
that to get the books certified they have report things **this way** or else. So
you reverse this, charge that, and they sign off. If you don't things can get
nasty. Banks can cut off your credit. New vendors can put you on COD. Access to
capital markets can disappear. Very bad. Who would say no to the auditors?
Let's see.......
So the pressing question we have today is:
Why would SCO's officers refuse to comply with the demands of the auditors to
clean up the books and therefore risk the catastrophic consequences of delisting
and the inability to provide certified statements to those who need them for the
continued operation SCO's business?
Answer?
Hint: think jail time.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 08:53 PM EST |
". . . David consistently demonstrates you can be a strong, highly
successful advocate for your clients while at the same time acting with dignity,
decency and courtesy toward your opponent."
This is the same bar association that didn't like Johnny Cochran opening an
office here. I also thought that (like Cochran) Boies can't do legal work in
Florida.
For those that arn't aware of the way things work here in Miami-Dade county, as
a 40 year citizen of Miami I'll appoint myself to let you know.
- About 70% of the citizens of the county come from a third-world conuntry about
60% of those came from Cuba, where bribery was "the way things got
done".
- We've currently got a county comissioner on trial for bribery, a former city
comissioner suspected of bribery is now Mayor of Miami. The Mayor's partially
owned resturant (Monty's in the grove) owed the city something like a year's
worth of tax revenue, ripped off a couple of investors of around $100,000 (last
I heard that settled out of court). We had a former county comissioner that had
a crack addict/ prostitute stopped in his car who fled the country for Australia
(still there).
- I can't count the number of times there's been "shady" deals and
underhanded manuvering from the defense atty's and from the County's lawyers.
- Oh and from yesterday's paper was the description of how a "civil
servant" from the county on receiving a parking ticket ticked off an
officer by refusing to talk to the officer while trying to get out of the ticket
by calling in favors with higher ups in the police dept. Oh yea, you know the
results the officer was written up and the guy was pulled out of jail after 1 hr
by the Lt. Police chief's aide. The invesigation upheld all of this without
talking to the officer, nor the people that were called by the civil servant.
That's just the normal goings on, so now you can take his quotation in proper
context - and in that light he's right :)
Sorry for the rant, but I needed that. Please, somebody remind me why I live
here (besides the 80 degree temperature today)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 09:21 PM EST |
(Speculation)
I think that Bert Young and KPMG are no longuer arguing about accounts.
The accounts are done.
The wording of the Footnotes must be a painstaking endeavor, right now.
I think that were Bret and the Auditors part ways is the inclusion of the
paragraph "MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE AS A GOING CONCERN".
The "Going Concern" is the ultimate accounting mark of infamy, short
of outright bankrupcy. It means that with the current business plan,
the company is likely to be flat broke within 12 months.
It also means that no ordinary measures can save the company.
I think 2 main factors may have pushed SCO towards bankrupcy (omitting the
$31M to BS&F)
1) Steady loss of customers.
Bert's rosy previsions must have shown that the revenue erosion would be
halted by the release of Legend.
KPMG conservative projections must be based on the fact that customers
defections are likely to proceed at a steady rate.
After all, Legend is supposed to be at an advanced Beta Testing status,
but most of its developpers have been fired, which doesn't bode well
for a timely and successful launch.
2) Additional Legal costs.
SCO hopes that all previsible legal costs will be covered by the $31M
tribute to BS&F lawyers.
The auditors may not share this assumption. Several developments in the
main lawsuit can provoke major expenses for SCO.
A Dismissal or loss on the foolish Novell case may impair SCO's goodwill
severely.
Any new lawsuit against SCO, including a shareholder lawsuit, would break
SCO completely.
So, if and when SCO file its Audited financials, they might differ
significantly than those presented at the December phone conference, and
the outlook may be particularly grim.
Of course any institutional investor that bought SCOX, and then keep holding
SCOXE shares after its ability to continue as a "going concern" is
revealed,
would have failed its investors not once, but twice.
_Arthur
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 10:47 PM EST |
...must be one of those scrivener's errors or something...
Yeah! That would be a good explanation for the delay!
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: unsubtle on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:05 AM EST |
An investor enters a CEO's office.
Investor: 'Ello, I wish to register
a complaint.
(The CEO does not respond.)
I: 'Ello,
Miss?
CEO: What do you mean "miss"?
I: <pause> I'm sorry, I
have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
C: We're closin' for
lunch.
I: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about these
shares what I
purchased not half an hour ago from this very
boutique.
C: Oh yes, the, uh, the SCO Group...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
I: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's bankrupt,
that's what's
wrong with it!
C: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's
restructuring.
I: Look, matey, I know a bankrupt company when I see one,
and I'm looking
at one right now.
C: No no he's not bankrupt, he's,
he's restructurin'! Remarkable business, the SCO
Group, idn'it, ay?
Beautiful press releases!
I: The press releases don't enter into it. It
ain't got a business model.
C: Nononono, no, no! 'E's
restructuring!
I: All right then, if he's restructurin', I'll wake him
up!
(shouting so that everybody in the office can hear)
'Ello, SCO
salesperson! I've got a customer with lots of lovely money to spend if
you're selling operating systems...(CEO throws a Caldera Linux CD across the
desk)
C: There, that was a sales presentation!
I: No, it wasn't,
that was you throwing a CD across the desk!
C: I never!!
I: Yes,
you did!
C: I never, never did anything...
I: (yelling and hitting
the CD on the desk repeatedly) 'ELLO SALESPERSON!!!!!
Testing! Testing!
Testing! Testing! Wake up and smell the coffee!
(Throws the CD up in
the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
I: Now that's what I call a
dead company.
C: No, no.....No, 'e's suspended!
I:
SUSPENDED?!?
C: Yeah! Nasdaq suspended him, just as he was fillin' in
'is Form 10-K! SCOs
are easily suspended, major.
I: Um...now
look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this.
That company is
definitely not in business, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour
ago, you
assured me that its total lack of sales was due to it bein'
tired and shagged
out following a prolonged lawsuit.
C: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably
dreaming about making billions.
I: DREAMIN' of making BILLIONS?!?!?!?
What kind of talk is that?, look, why
did he give all 'is money to 'is
lawyers the moment I got 'im home?
C: The SCO Group prefers givin' its
money to its lawyers! Remarkable business, id'nit,
squire? Lovely press
releases!
I: Look, I took the liberty of researching that on Groklaw when
I got home,
and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on any
cash in
the first place was that it had agreed to pay ALL its money to its
lawyers in INSTALLMENTS.
(pause)
C: Well, o'course 'e agreed to
pay all 'is money! If 'e hadn't agreed to that,
'is precious IP would have
nuzzled up to those confidentiality clauses, bent 'em apart with the Nazgul,
and
VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
I: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this IP wouldn't "voom"
if you put four billion dollars
behind it! It's bleedin' obsolete!
C:
No no! 'E's dreaming of making billions!
I: 'E's not dreamin'! 'E's
gone bust! This company is no more! He has ceased
to be! 'E's dissolved
and gone to meet 'is liquidator! 'E's broke! Bereft
of revenue, 'e rests in
bankruptcy! If you hadn't painted 'is stock 'e'd make
a dead cat bounce!
'Is business processes are now 'istory! 'E's permanently off
the dividend
list! 'E's issued 'is last invoice, 'e's laid off 'is employees, sold
off
'is assets and joined the Chamber of Commerce in the sky!!
THIS IS AN
EX-SCO!!
(pause)
C: Well, I'd better replace it, then.
(he
takes a quick peek behind the desk)
C: Sorry squire, I've had a look
'round the back of the desk, and uh, we're
right out of SCOs.
I: I
see. I see, I get the picture.
C: <pause> I got a
Microsoft.
--
Credits, and pathetic pleas not to sue
me, are due to the Monty Python team.
Disclaimer: any resemblance to the
SCO Group is entirely intentional, but I made up some bits to make it
funnier. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:43 AM EST |
Is the sweet refrain of golden parachutes being packed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Juggler9 on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:45 AM EST |
Could the stock buyback that SCOX(E) previously announced have been part of an
orchestrated move to get back enough stock (or concentrate enough stock into the
hands of small willing group) to take the company private? That way they
wouldn't have to file 10Ks (or any other forms) that they knew were cooked and
increasingly dodgy.
As I said, purely idle question. Tinfoil hat territory.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 10:20 AM EST |
I went to check on the price this morning and Get this message
Symbol SCOX-QS not found. For reference, press Symbol Lookup
Is someone jumping the gun?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:38 AM EST |
From Bob Mims article In the Salt Lake Tribune posted on
www.sltrib.com:
...'"If they clean up the problem in the next few days, then I
don't believe it is a big deal," said Dion Cornett of Decatur Jones. "If they
don't, then they should face some tough questions about why they didn't work
around the clock to fix a relatively minor issue.'...
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2576417
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST |
So it's official.
However, as of 9:00 PST it's value is still a surprisingly high $4.02. I
thought it'd be a good chunk lower.
I liked the Motley Fool's article on SCO and how McBride is making a killing
(monetarily and literally) even though the company has entered its death
throes.
--
"Listen, mate, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis
for a system of government!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sonicfrog on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:06 PM EST |
Interesting to note. One of my pool route customers (yes I'm a pool guy - don't
laugh) is a day trader. We discuss the market, stocks, and related topics. She
told me there has been a cap on shorting SCO stock for a while now. Shorting
stock is akin to betting against a football team but the worse the team does,
the higher your profit. So Wall Street as a collective has been smelling the rot
on this carcass for quite some time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rudisaurus on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:57 PM EST |
Here's my favorite quote of the day, however, from a poster on
Slashdot: "Were it not for /. clearing up the FUD, their stock would probably
still be flying high on rampant speculation."
Well, there's
no doubt that the real credit for debunking most of the FUD belongs to GrokLaw
(as several highly-rated follow-up posters on Slashdot hastened to point out).
But, in fairness to Slashdot, they did cover this story in some detail from its
earliest days. That's how I myself originally came to GrokLaw; a posting there
made reference to this site.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grouch on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:39 PM EST |
I just clicked a bookmark to view some quotes and got this wonderful little
message:
'SCOX' is no longer valid. It has changed to
SCOXE.
Hmm, haven't we been saying they're no longer
valid for nearly two years now?
--- "The power of the Web is in its
universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential
aspect." -- Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the WWW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|