|
|
| NASDAQ Historic Moment |
 |
|
Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST
|
Groklaw has been covering the SCO story every single day, since mid-May of 2003, and we have, therefore, a complete history of the saga to date. One conscious goal was to compile a permanent home for all the documents and every detail that mattered for historians to use in the future.I would be remiss if I did not include this historic moment. And this. And this. eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has more reactions from Open Source company executives and project leaders in attendance at LinuxWorld. No one expressed surprise at SCO's threatened delisting, although some realistically pointed out that the SCO v. IBM lawsuit continues. Here's my favorite quotation: Another open-source industry figure added, "Once IBM countersued and brought in patent claims against SCO, you knew it was all over. It's like kicking a pitbull. No matter what else happens, you're going to end up a mess."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST |
| OT and links here please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I wanna hear from HIs Darlness! - Authored by: frk3 on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Yahoo Link if you need it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Tab bar - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:49 PM EST
- Another way - Authored by: joef on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:42 PM EST
- Another way - Authored by: sjf on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:50 PM EST
- job for pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:35 PM EST
- HardOCP wins ! - Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST
- OT: Has M$ infiltrated your LUG ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST
- BSA, any comments on this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:45 PM EST
- Microsoft Tries New Pitch to Curb Linux Use - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:57 PM EST
- More FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 06:46 PM EST
- Doubleplusgood Day - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 06:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:53 AM EST |
| Corrections here please, so PJ can find them quickly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST |
Nazdaq => Nasdaq
But a historic moment regardless![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:57 AM EST |
If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there will it make a noise?
Yes! because we are watching and cheering this moment in history.
Willie
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST |
I think Groklaw really needs someway to absolutely save
the content of those web pages. Links are very transient
in nature, as we have all experienced.
I wish I had the answer, but I don't. Perhaps
someone else out there does.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST |
The stock got delisted and then went UP!.
Who are these investors anyway?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hanzie on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST |
Anyone have a clue why the change from SCOX TO SCOXE?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:05 PM EST |
Interesting comment from Maureen O:
"SCO, by the way, says it's put its infamous SCOsource licensing scheme
into "low gear." It's apparently still got sales guys doing
customer-facing missionary work, backed up by SCO's general counsel, but SCO VP
Chris Sontag has been shifted to other duties. Reportedly SCO is still booking
some license revenues, but judging from the last quarters they must be pretty
thin. The company's hopes of collecting depend on how its suits go."
I hadn't heard that before! Here's the link:
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48274.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Trithemius on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:05 PM EST |
Is SCO now able to hide finances better? Are they going to get a sudden
'payment' from somewhere, and not have to fess up as to where it came from..?
(Not to look a gift horse in the mouth or anything, but this looks like
something that could have been avoided, perhaps?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:13 PM EST |
Proposition: The real reason that SCOG is/was willing to get delisted was to
kill the Yahoo!Finance SCOX message board.
I guess that now all the research that was done there will have to be done here
on Groklaw.
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jasontn on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST |
Now that some authority has finally sat up and take notice, would there be more?
FTC? Class action suits?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST |
Oh, the questions this brings up...So, what's next PJ? With SCO struggling with
delisting, where do you turn your attention now? Can Groklaw exist in a SCO-less
world? What's the strategy?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: spuluka on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:26 PM EST |
I've finally had a close look at the numbers and found out why "cash flow
positive" was used to describe Unix business instead of profitable. You
can see that even without the litigation, the operations expenses are larger
than the profits in the Unix business.
**There is ONLY a GROSS profit NOT a NET profit on this line.**
They do a nice job hiding the fact in their reports. Unfortunatly, at the
current burn rate They will not go bankrupt until 2007.
I've done some analysis of the cash position reported by SCOX in the last call.
By my calculations IF THE BURN RATE DOES NOT INCREASE, they won't run out of
money until 4Q 2007. There will be around 3-4 Million in cash left for IBM to
take after the trial next year, plus any asset sale. The wild card is other
legal expenses. The 8k mentions ONLY IBM not Novell or Redhat.
Here's the deal:
**Cash 31449 4Q 2004
Available for operations and legal fees
**Restricted cash 8283
5000 for legal experts and out of pocket the rest payment to Novell for the
SVRX. None available for other expenses.
Boise Contract terms per the 8k filing:
Previous work payment 1800
Fee on contract exec 10800
Quarterly 2000 sept 1 04
Quarterly 2000 dec 1 04
Quarterly 2000 March 1 05
Quarterly 2000 June 1 05
Quarterly 2000 Sept 1 05
Quarterly 2000 Dec 1 05
Total 24600
Fees are now prepaid through trial & appeals on IBM ONLY I THINK.
Operations:
Unix Sales 8296
Service Sales 1659
Total Sales 9955
Unix Cost 857
Service Cost 861
Total Direct Costs 1718
Gross Profit 8237
Operating costs 10710
Burn per year -2473
Burn per quarter -618.25
Thus cash depletion look like this:
4th Quarter CASH 31,449
Bois execution payment 12600 18,849
Bois Quarter 9/1/04 2000 16,849
Boise Quarter 12/1/04 2000 14,849
Cash Burn 12/1/04 618.25 14,231
Boise Quarter 3/1/05 2000 12,849
Cash Burn 3/1/04 618.25 12,231
Boise Quarter 6/1/05 2000 10,231
Cash Burn 6/1/05 618.25 9,613
Boise Quarter 9/1/05 2000 7,613
Cash Burn 9/1/05 618.25 6,994
Boise Quarter 12/1/05 2000 4,994
Cash Burn 12/1/05 618.25 4,376
Cash Burn 3/1/06 618.25 3,758
Cash Burn 6/1/06 618.25 3,140
Cash Burn 9/1/06 618.25 2,521
Cash Burn 12/1/06 618.25 1,903
Cash Burn 3/1/07 618.25 1,285
Cash Burn 6/1/07 618.25 667
Cash Burn 9/1/07 618.25 48
---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST |
This should serve as a nice warning to other companies BayStar tries to
manipulate in the interest of other masters.
<p>
And a warning to CxOs everywhere -- just because your investor invested in you,
it doesn't mean his interests are aligned with yours or that of your company.
Beware of guys like that try to lead you down paths that may be damaging to your
business but may satisfy other secret deals they may have on the side (including
large short positions and strategic aliances with other huge companies).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Paranoid - Authored by: manys on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:51 PM EST
- Paranoid - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 02:11 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:52 PM EST |
I can think of a few:
Something they would have had to put in the 10k
that they REALLY didn't want people to see.
Put the kabosh on the
discussion boards.
Trying to screw over the shorts.
Separating the
assets from the debts. I knew a company once, that got into this state and sold
off all its IP, its employees and other assets, leaving their original stock
connected to a corporation that only had lawsuits and debts attached to it.
Ultimately the stock went down to a fraction of a cent, but all the assets were
effectively transferred to another company in the process, debt and lawsuit
free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: om1er on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:00 PM EST |
PJ,
Please go out and celebrate tonight in a nice BLUE dress. :)
---
Keeping an eye on the bouncing ball.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST |
| Some of the sweetest, gentlest dogs I have ever known were pitbulls. Please
don't propagate this doggie racism against Pete the Pup and
his friends. We all know what racism can lead
to. Certainly don't malign them by comparing them to IBM lawyers with
bloodlust. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kiaser Zohsay on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:02 PM EST |
From the article "Even if SCO is delisted, IBM won't stop
until they've salted the soil of Lindon, Utah," said Allison. "It will be like
'Keyser Soze' [the arch-villain from the movie 'The Usual Suspects']."
Well sure, anyone can spell it that
way. ---
IANYMIAADSTD -- "I am not your mother, I am a dog" said the
dog. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How about... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:42 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: urzumph on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:17 PM EST |
OK, I'm probably a little slow on the uptake (It IS 6am) but isn't Nasdaq
required to give like 9 days notice? Have they actually done that? I thought it
was closer to 3? I could, of course, be wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ikocher on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:20 PM EST |
In the link to finance.yahoo.com, there is a paragraph that reads:
----------------------
BUSINESS SUMMARY
The SCO Group, Inc., formerly known as Caldera International, Inc., owns the
UNIX operating system and is a provider of UNIX-based products and services.
...
----------------------
Following the link (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=SCOXE), it says is a
"REUTERS ABRIDGED BUSINESS SUMMARY".
Does anyone here knows how can this be said in yahoo/reuters, while at the same
time Novell is saying that Novell owns the copyright? (court still pending,
etc...)
Any ideas?
Ivan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: talexb on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 04:04 PM EST |
Interestingly, ClearStation is not
yet showing the name change. I'm sure their site is capable of doing that, they
just haven't gotten around to making the change. My favourite post on the
discussion board is this
one, where he describes the stock as a 'publicly traded lawsuit'. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 04:07 PM EST |
| SCO's Investor Relations page still lists
yesterday's message. I guess the webmaster never got the memo.
The SCO
Group (SCOX)
as of 3:47 EST on Feb 18
Last Change High Low Volume
4.07 + 0.37,10.00% 4.26 3.70 70,700 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But 18th == today - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 05:11 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 04:32 PM EST |
Darl loses $750k bonus if he signs the 10K??
From the Yahoo message
boards:
"Perhaps Darl's standoff with the accountants might last a long
time -- maybe we *never* see a signed, audited 10K from Darl for fy 2004. Here
is one guess that I believe could cause this: Section 304 of Sarbanes Oxley
states that if a company must restate its financial statements due to material
noncompliance, misconduct, or with any financial reporting requirement, the CEO
and CFO must reimburse the company all bonuses and other incentive-based or
equity-based compensation received during the 12-month period following issuance
of the financial statements, including restatements.
So if we speculate
the accountants found a problem requiring revising past financial statements
that trigger section 304, then if Darl signs them he loses all his past and some
future bonuses -- bye bye vacation home. So he won't sign."
Direct
link: Semi-Permanent Accounting Standoff
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 04:51 PM EST |
It's like kicking a pitbull. No matter what else happens, you're
going to end up a mess. I prefer Sancho Panza's quote, "Whether
the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, it's bound to be bad for
the pitcher."---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 05:07 PM EST |
I am sending this complaint to the Securities Exchange Commission
(enforcement@sec.gov) to describe the illegal actions being taken by Jim
Allchin, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, BayStar Capital LP, Baystar Capital II,
L.P., BayStar Capital Management, LLC, Boies Schiller & Flexner, The Canopy
Group, Brent Christensen, Steven Derby, Bill Gates, Lawrence Goldfarb, Jeff
Hunsaker, Steven M. Lamar, Darl McBride, Microsoft Corporation, Darcy Mott,
Thomas Raimondi, Royal Bank of Canada, S2 Strategic Consulting, The SCO Group,
Inc., Vulcan Capital, Ralph Yarro, and Bert Young. These entities have committed
numerous crimes centered around the recent activities of The SCO Group, Inc.
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complaint.v4.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dear mr. Stites ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 05:45 PM EST
- Dear mr. Stites ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 05:57 PM EST
- Dear mr. Stites ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST
- Yes they have.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 06:09 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 06:17 PM EST |
| Suing your customers (past, current or future) is always bad karma. Suing IBM,
a company that if you can partner up with can lead to riches, is very bad
karma.
Sometimes I read yet another crazy action by Darl or Yarro and I
think that what we see is an example of someone acting like monkey in the old
story where a fruit is placed in a tight necked jar. The monkey will reach in
and grasp the fruit, but cannot pull his fist and the fruit out of the jar. The
only way to get the fruit is to let go.
Darl and Yarro cannot let go of the
money, even though if they did so just a few months ago, they might have saved
the company.
---
Not using the GPL is not a character flaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:14 PM EST |
> It's like kicking a pitbull.
No. It's like kicking an African bull elephant.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arrg on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:14 PM EST |
It was a daily ritual to look at the stock in the morning and read the news,
then go bang my head against the wall because of all the gullible people
throwing their money away....
---
Time is funny stuff, space has it's points too.... - Hap[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:19 PM EST |
A story from a former Navy Seal:
Their squad was out to set up an ambush,
but got caught in an ambush themselves. Hiding behind a log with his
squadmates, one member who was known for his wacky sense of humor yelled
out:
"Ha! We've got them right where we wanted
us!"
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the
jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Reverse Ambush - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 09:18 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 07:23 PM EST |
| With the name change, we seem to have lost all of their historical data. Oh
well shoulda downloaded the raw data yesterday. ---
Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bender3000 on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 08:07 PM EST |
Yes
But can we happy dance?
if YES then
I'm happily jumping
and sippingin my sigle malt
else
feeling
sick
end if
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 08:30 PM EST |
Snow falls in Utah.
The Nazgul sharpen their knives.
The penguin triumphs.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 09:34 PM EST |
| Clunk [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wrong Corp! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 09:42 PM EST
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 10:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: eddsouza on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 09:36 PM EST |
In an article titled "Computer programme patenting may brake IT boom", the TIMES
NEWS NETWORK in India yesterday put this news up at
http://infotech.in
diatimes.com/articleshow/1023943.cms
It may not seem particularly
important compared to the US and Europe, from which most F/OSS software comes -
but by gosh! The dirty nasty software pigopolists have managed to find the
buying price for the Indian government, have they?
(Maybe this has
already been posted - if so, please pardon me - I'm still reeling from the shock
of reading this)
NEW DELHI: Imagine a scenario where a
music composer is prevented from being inspired by another musician. He has to
start from scratch and give an entirely new definition to music. Unimaginable,
isn’t it? Now replace ‘music’ with ‘software’ and this is what the Indian
government is seeking to do. Or so some critics argue.
The amendments
to the Indian Patent Act introduced by a recent Ordinance will allow all
computer programmes to be patented. The Indian Patent Act, as modified in 2002,
had made “a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per
se or algorithms” non-patentable.
However, the recent amendment changes
this phrase defining what cannot be patented to “a computer programme per se
other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware,
a mathematical or business method or algorithms.”
Since any commercial
software has some industry application and these applications are technical in
nature, it opens virtually all software to patenting, say the critics of the
move.
This is some of the worst news I have come across
in a long time - and that, too, when SCO has wooden stake effecting pericardial
entry!
Eddie.
---
What on earth was God thinking when He
created mosquitoes.. leeches.. and filthy politicians!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 09:49 PM EST |
An oldie.
Q. If a bunch of SCO UNIX servers fell over on Darl and no one was there, would
Darl make a sound?
A. Who cares.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 10:52 PM EST |
| Nazguls, NASDAQ, thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 11:08 PM EST |
No that isn't Darl, that's the Iraq Information Minister (or whatever that guy's
title was).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 19 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST |
| I have been wondering for months what the final cards SCOX would lay on the
table in the game to spread their FUD to destroy both IBM and Linux's good name.
Now this is clear. SCO has probably known all along that you can't win this one
so I was sure there was a plan at the end to some how bail out and take their
fortunes and retire on some tropical island somewhere. After all the did hire a
RICO lawyer didn't they? Planning for something I suppose?
What I never
suspected was for them to do it BEFORE the court case was over! After all, you
can't loose a court case if you are not “a company” any more can you? Why not
fold the company and drop the law suit? The worst part is that the FUD would
remain since the court case would stall indefinitely, thus IBM and Linux would
never be able to clear their good name. Others could then say that there was
evidence but due to circumstances SCO was unable to continue the case long
enough to bring it to victory. Poor SCO, if they only had a week or more with
the new discovery they would have won the case hands down. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
