|
|
| SCO Files Tardy 10K and 10Q/A With the SEC |
 |
|
Friday, April 01 2005 @ 07:39 PM EST
|
SCO said they would file their 10K and 10Q soon, and they really have. Here is the 10Q/A and here's the 10K, with multiple exhibits. I haven't read them myself yet, merely found them, so let's read them together. Exhibit 23.1, the KPMG statement, reads like this: Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Stockholders
The SCO Group, Inc.: We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-43822, 333-97865,
and 333-100105 on Form S-8 of The SCO Group, Inc. of our report dated
February 18, 2005, except as to note 16, which is as of March 11, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of The SCO Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of October 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31,
2004, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
October 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of The SCO
Group, Inc.
/s/ KPMG LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
March 31, 2005
Here's their press release about it.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: fettler on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 07:55 PM EST |
| For the Eats Shoots and Leaves Brigade [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rm6990 on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 07:56 PM EST |
OT Here Please
---
http://members.shaw.ca/ryan_mcgregor[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:02 PM EST |
| Maybe SCO has been holding off until April 1st to submit their 10K. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:04 PM EST |
These apocryphal attacks are supposed to be keeping SCO's customers or
potential customers from doing business with them. If I really wanted to contact
these people, and I couldn't because their website was down either through thir
incompetance or because one of these (alleged) DoS attacks was supposed to be
taking place, I think I'd be able to pick up the phone, right? Not having an
accessible website is about the least likely of the reasons that SCO's
business is suffering.
Methinks spending US$24 on lawyers might be a
much more likely reason for a down year. But that's just my opinion. I'm not a
high-fallutin' CEO like 'ol Darl, so what do I know, eh? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LarryVance on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:07 PM EST |
APRIL FOOLS:
McBride
Young
---
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR INFLUENCE!
Larry Vance[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- April Fools and then some... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:25 PM EST
- Queeg - Authored by: azrael on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 02:15 AM EST
- Queeg - Authored by: Cesar Rincon on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 02:41 AM EST
- Queeg - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 09:47 AM EST
- Queeg - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 04:58 PM EST
- Queeg - Authored by: tbogart on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Queeg - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 04 2005 @ 10:43 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:08 PM EST |
The success of our UNIX business will, in large measure, depend on the
level of commitment and certification we receive from industry partners and
developers. In recent years, we have seen hardware and software vendors as well
as software developers turn their certification and application development
efforts toward Linux and elect not to continue to support or certify to our UNIX
operating system products. This trend continued in fiscal year 2004, and we
believe that it will continue in fiscal year 2005. If this trend does continue
as expected, our competitive position will be adversely impacted and our future
revenue from our UNIX business will decline, possibly at an even faster rate
than it has declined over the last several years. The decline in our UNIX
business may be accelerated if industry partners withdraw their support from us
as a result of our SCOsource initiatives.Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:09 PM EST |
| A quick look at the figures they present suggests that all their remaining cash
and other assets will be dissipated in under a year. Now I am not an expert on
such matters, and may be misunderstanding a few things, but every set of figures
I look at seems to say much the same. Maybe by some stretch of the imagination,
it might be 18 months. The rate of spend is rising, income is falling, etc. And,
somewhere, is an admission that they have never been profitable. A quick read
also suggests a great deal of on-going stupidity, in still pursuing DC (for
what, exactly?), and in attracting other legal problems elsewhere such as in
India and even California. If I was an investor, I would find the entire 10-K
utterly depressing. Looking at all that, a reasonable person might expect the
stock price to come crashing down first thing on Monday, however on past
experience I rather expect it to rise. But looking at the finances, I get the
impression that we are not seeing a serious business here, but simply a front to
cover up something else. And that may well be the assault against FOSS by a
certain Convicted Monopolist, but I wonder if it is actually something quite
different. But there must be lots here for those with real financial expertise
to debate here at great length, and I look forward to hearing some expert
opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:11 PM EST |
When you file anything that people may use to decide about buying a stock, you
have to honestly state your risks. The quote below is obligatory but it sure
sounds bleak doesn't it. I particularly like the last sentence.
"Because of the uncertainties related to our SCOsource business, we are
unable to estimate the amount and timing of future SCOsource licensing revenue
as well as predict the ultimate level of spending on our lawsuits. This
uncertainty represents a significant risk and challenge for us, both in the
short and long term. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be
sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Our SCOsource initiatives are
unlikely to produce a stable or predictable revenue stream for the foreseeable
future. Additionally, the success of these initiatives may depend on the
strength of our intellectual property rights and contractual claims regarding
UNIX, including the strength of our claim that unauthorized UNIX source code and
derivative works are prevalent in Linux."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gnuadam on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:11 PM EST |
The 10Q/A that they filed is not the overdue 10Q for this just ended quater,
it's the ammended 10Q for the quarter that ended Jan 2004.
As I understand it, they're still overdue on the filing of the 10Q for the
quarter ended Jan 2005.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LarryVance on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:15 PM EST |
| IPO Class Action Matter
We are an issuer defendant in a series of class
action lawsuits, involving over 300 issuers that have been consolidated under In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS). The
consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, certain improprieties
regarding the underwriters’ conduct during our initial public offering and the
failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The plaintiffs, the issuers and the
insurance companies have negotiated an agreement to settle the dispute between
the plaintiffs and the issuers. All parties, including the plaintiffs, issuers
and insurance companies, have executed this settlement agreement and the
settlement agreement has been submitted to the court for approval. If the
settlement agreement is approved by the court, and if no cross-claims,
counterclaims or third-party claims are later asserted, this action will be
dismissed with respect to our directors and us.
We have notified our
underwriters and insurance companies of the existence of the claims. We
believe, after consultation with legal counsel, that the ultimate outcome of
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations
or financial position and will not exceed the $200,000 self-insured
retention amount already paid or accrued by us.
---
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE
YOUR INFLUENCE!
Larry Vance [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:25 PM EST |
Current Status and Strategy
In fiscal year 2004, we
continued to pursue our SCOsource initiatives. The revenue generated from our
SCOsource initiatives in fiscal year 2004 was significantly less than revenue
generated in fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2004 SCOsource revenue was primarily
generated from SCOsource IP licenses. For fiscal year 2005, we plan to
continue to review and evaluate our UNIX license agreements and pursue large
vendor contracts, such as those completed in fiscal year 2003, and plan to
further pursue our SCOsource initiatives.
We also plan to continue to
pursue our litigation against IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and DaimlerChrysler and
defend against the claims asserted by Red Hat. My bold.
Or maybe other
backers??
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:38 PM EST |
| "Through this process, we acquired all UNIX source code, source code license
agreements with thousands of UNIX vendors, certain UNIX intellectual property,
all claims for violation of the above mentioned UNIX licenses and copyrights and
other claims, and the control over UNIX derivative works." Thousands? i.e.
people who have source licences from SCO or their predecessors, and who sell
Unix customised to their product? That is people like Sun (Solaris), IBM (AIX)
HP (HP/UX), and a lot of smaller companies who make specific things. I would
have beleived tens, maybe a few hundred. But thousands? Or is this inflated by
the same factor as the numbers of developers, resellers, etc....... And of
course resellers who simply sell a boxed set of SCO disks and manuals, for
example, or even a PC with a binary installed, don't need a source licence, any
more than people who sell standard PCs need a Windoze source
licence. Something is very fishy indeed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blang on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 08:54 PM EST |
Does the 'except for ...' only mean the first thing they listed there, or the
whole list?
Reading it one way I come up with, "we consent to this, except for this one
little thing, and our consent includes all the things we next list."
Another way of reading it is: "we consent to this, except for this one
little thing, and this little thing includes ..cash flow, balance sheet, revenue
recoginition adn the whole 18 yards" In other words, it still all up in the
air?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 09:36 PM EST |
| Just sort of kidding here, but it is funny that tSCOg financial Goodwill has
dropped to zero. It is possible to have negative Goodwill (which tSCOg has in a
non-financial sense), but unlikely that we will see it in their annual
reports. Maybe Judge Wells can make a personal contribution to get the
financial goodwill above zero this year. ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris_bloke on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 10:27 PM EST |
We are a party to certain other legal proceedings arising
in the ordinary course of business including legal
proceedings
arising from our SCOsource initiatives. We
believe, after consultation
with legal counsel, that the
ultimate outcome of such legal proceedings
will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations or
financial position.
Wonder what that's
all about ? They already mention:
- IBM
- Novell
- Autozone
- DC
- Redhat
What else is there ?
Or have I been asleep ? :-)
- Chris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 10:37 PM EST |
Reviewing and Evaluating Existing UNIX Licenses. As mentioned
above, in fiscal year 2003 we began reviewing the status of our
existing UNIX
license agreements with UNIX vendors and entered into two significant vendor
license agreements. This review continued in
fiscal year 2004 and will continue
in fiscal year 2005.
SCO does not have power to modify
license terms (or enter into new UNIX licenses) without Novell's
consent.
If you check the letters between Novell and SCO, you will see
Novell specifically asked about the Sun and Microsoft licenses, and pointed out
that SCO could not modify existing UNIX license agreements. SCO's reply, saiid
they hadn't, and that they had sold Sun and Microsoft something else
entirely.
Now re-read that paragraph from the
10-K.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
P.S.
If anybody wants
to look up the letters, and post a quote of the links or relevants bits,
corresponding to this 10-K paragraph, please do.
P.P.S.
Elsewhere
in the 10-K it says that SCO intends to try to do more of this 2003-stuff in
2005....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toads_for_all on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 10:48 PM EST |
<<"Our future success depends to a significant extent on the
continued service and coordination of our management team, particularly Darl C.
McBride, our President and Chief Executive Officer.">>
Oh, puleeze. You just _know_ he wrote this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris_bloke on Friday, April 01 2005 @ 11:22 PM EST |
When we failed to file this Form 10-K in a
timely fashion,
we became ineligible to use Form S-3, our registration
statement ceased to
be effective and BayStar's ability to
resell shares pursuant to that
registration statement
terminated. We are currently in the process of
preparing
a new registration statement for the resale of BayStar's
shares on Form S-1.
oops.. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 12:09 AM EST |
Broken, Awful, Dropping - (sorry Michael)
OK, I am not a stock market guru or anything like that but it looks, to my eyes,
more like 2003 was an exceptional year and the overall trend is down and down.
One question is 'when did the 200k trade take place?'. Was it before or after
the release (not the subsequent publicity)? Should the SEC be taking a close
look at that?
Oops, 3 questions, sorry.
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 12:20 AM EST |
Here's a passage from the 10-K which makes for some very good reading [emphasis
added, translation in italics]:
Risk
Factors
We do not have a history of profitable operations.
Our
fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 was the first full year we were profitable in
our operating history. Our profitability in fiscal year 2003 resulted
primarily from our SCOsource licensing initiatives. Translation: payouts
funneled from Microsoft. For fiscal year 2004, we incurred a net loss
from operations of $28,573,000 and our accumulated deficit as of October 31,
2004 was $224,216,000. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in
future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our UNIX products and services
continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses to
generate positive cash flow. We may not be able to further reduce operating
expenses without damaging our ability to support our existing UNIX business.
Additionally, we may not be able to achieve profitability through additional
cost-cutting actions.
Our UNIX products and services revenue has
declined over the last several years primarily as a result of increased
competition from alternative operating systems, particularly Linux. In our
quarterly results of operations, we recognize revenue from agreements for
support and maintenance contracts and other long-term contracts that have been
previously invoiced and are included in deferred revenue. Our future UNIX
revenue may be adversely impacted and may continue to decline if we are unable
to replenish these deferred revenue balances with long-term maintenance and
support contracts or replace them with other sustainable revenue streams. If we
are unable to generate positive cash flow and profitable operations, our
operations will be adversely impacted.
We may not prevail in our SCO
Litigation, which may adversely affect our business.
We continue to
pursue our SCO Litigation as described in more detail in Item 3 of Part I of
this Form 10-K and believe very strongly in the merits of our cases. In
our action against IBM, we seek damages for claims generally relating to our
allegation that IBM has inappropriately used and distributed our UNIX source
code and derivative works in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux
operating system. IBM has responded to our claims and brought counterclaims
against us asserting generally that we do not have the right to assert claims
based on our ownership of UNIX intellectual property against IBM or others in
the Linux market. Discovery is continuing in the case, and several motions are
currently
[end of page 41]
pending before the court. If we do not
prevail in our action against IBM, or if IBM is successful in its counterclaims
against us, our business and results of operations would be materially harmed
and we may not be able to continue in business. Translation: the cases will
bankrupt us, no matter the result. The litigation with IBM and others
will be costly, and our costs for legal fees have been and will continue to be
substantial and may exceed our capital resources. Additionally, the market
price of our common stock may be negatively affected as a result of developments
in our legal action against IBM that may be, or may be perceived to be, adverse
to us.
As a result of our SCO Litigation and our other SCOsource
initiatives, several participants in the Linux industry and others affiliated
with IBM or sympathetic to the Linux movement have taken actions attempting to
negatively affect our business and our SCOsource efforts. Linux proponents have
taken a broad range of actions against us, including, for example, attempting to
influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or
eliminate the amount of our products and services they purchase from us. We
expect that similar efforts likely will continue. There is a risk that
participants in our marketplace will negatively view our action against IBM,
Novell, DaimlerChrysler, and AutoZone and our other SCOsource initiatives, and
we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could
adversely affect our position in the marketplace, our results of operations
and our stock price and our ability to stay in business. We have also
experienced several denial-of-service attacks on our website, which have
prevented web users from accessing our website and doing business with us for a
period of time. If such attacks continue or if our customers and strategic
partners are also subjected to similar attacks, our business and results of
operations could be materially harmed. In addition, some of the more
significant participants in the Linux industry have made efforts to ease Linux
end users’ concerns that their use of Linux may subject them to potential
copyright infringement claims from us. Translation: let's play the blame
game!
As a further response to our SCOsource initiatives and
claim that our UNIX source code and derivative works have inappropriately been
included in Linux, Novell has publicly asserted its belief that it owns certain
copyrights in our UNIX source code, and it has filed 15 copyright applications
with the United States Copyright Office related to UNIX. Novell also claims
that it has a license to UNIX from us and the right to authorize its customers
to use UNIX technology in their internal business operations. Specifically,
Novell has also claimed to have retained rights related to legacy UNIX SVRx
licenses, including the license with IBM. Novell asserts it has the right to
take action on behalf of SCO in connection with such licenses, including
termination and waiver rights. Novell has purported to veto our termination of
the IBM, Sequent and SGI licenses. We have repeatedly asserted that we obtained
the UNIX business, source code, claims and copyrights when we acquired the
assets and operations of the server and professional services groups from The
Santa Cruz Operation (now Tarantella, Inc.) in May 2001, which had previously
acquired all such assets and rights from Novell in September 1995 pursuant to an
asset purchase agreement, as amended. Translation: cough cough cough, we
can't understand the APA. In January 2004, in response to Novell’s
actions, we brought suit against Novell for slander of title seeking relief for
Novell’s alleged bad faith effort to interfere with our copyrights and contract
rights related to our UNIX source code and derivative works and our UnixWare
products. Our lawsuit against Novell is also described in more detail in Item 3
of Part I of this Form 10-K.
Notwithstanding our assertions of full
ownership of UNIX-related intellectual property rights, as set forth above,
including copyrights, and even if we are successful in our legal action
against Novell and end users such as AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler, the efforts
of Novell and the other Linux proponents described above may cause Linux end
users to be less willing to purchase from us our SCOsource IP licenses
authorizing their use of our intellectual property contained in the Linux
operating system, which has and may continue to adversely affect our revenue
from our SCOsource initiatives. These efforts of Linux proponents also may
increase the negative view some participants in our marketplace have regarding
our SCO Litigation and regarding our SCOsource initiatives and may contribute to
creating confusion in the marketplace about the validity of our claim that the
unauthorized use of our UNIX source code and derivative works in Linux infringes
on our copyrights. Increased negative perception
[end of page
42]
and potential confusion about our claims in our marketplace could impede
our continued pursuit of our SCOsource initiatives and negatively impact our
business.
Our failure to timely file this Form 10-K, and our
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 (as
previously defined, the “Form 10-Q”), could result in the delisting of our
common stock on The Nasdaq SmallCap Market.
We received notice on
February 16, 2005 from The Nasdaq Stock Market that, due to the delay in filing
this Form 10-K, we were not, as of such date, in compliance with the filing
requirements for continued listing set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14),
and that our common stock is, therefore, subject to delisting at the opening of
business on February 25, 2004. We requested and participated in a hearing with
the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel on March 17, 2005. At the hearing, we
outlined for the Panel our plan for filing this Form 10-K and the Form 10-Q,
which also was not filed in a timely fashion. On March 18, 2005, we received a
notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market regarding our potential delisting as a
result of our failure to file the Form 10-Q in a timely fashion. The notice
informed us that the Panel will consider the filing delinquency of our Form 10-Q
in addition to the filing delinquency of this Form 10-K in rendering its
decision regarding our listing status. We will continue to be listed on The
Nasdaq SmallCap Market under the symbol SCOXE pending the issuance of the
Panel’s decision. Although we have filed this Form 10-K, we have not yet filed
the Form 10-Q, and there can be no assurance that Nasdaq will not act to delist
our common stock from The Nasdaq SmallCap Stock Market.
Our Engagement
Agreement with the Law Firms will require us to spend a significant amount of
cash during fiscal year 2005 and could harm our liquidity
position.
-----------8<----------8<----------
Our future
SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
We initiated the SCOsource
licensing effort in fiscal year 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and
sublicensing agreements. This effort resulted in the execution of two
significant vendor license agreements during fiscal year 2003 and generated
$25,846,000 in revenue. During fiscal year 2004, our SCOsource licensing
revenue declined significantly and was only $829,000. Due to a lack of
historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing
revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future SCOsource
licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be
sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Our SCOsource initiatives are
unlikely to produce stable, predictable revenue for the foreseeable future.
Additionally, the success of these initiatives may depend on the strength of our
intellectual property rights and contractual claims regarding UNIX, including
the strength of our claim that unauthorized UNIX source code and derivatives are
prevalent in Linux.
We may lose the support of industry partners leading to
an accelerated decline in our UNIX products and services revenue.
Translation: This is already happening.
The decline in our UNIX
business and our SCOsource initiatives may cause industry partners, developers
and hardware and software vendors to choose not to support or certify to our
UNIX operating
[end of page 43]
system products. This would lead to an
accelerated decline in our UNIX products and services revenue and would
adversely impact our results of operations and liquidity.
Our claims
relating to our UNIX intellectual property may subject us to additional legal
proceedings.
In August 2003, Red Hat brought a lawsuit against us
asserting that the Linux operating system does not infringe on our UNIX
intellectual property rights and seeking a declaratory judgment for
non-infringement of copyrights and no misappropriation of trade secrets. In
addition, Red Hat claims we have engaged in false advertising in violation of
the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, tortious
interference with prospective business opportunities, and trade libel and
disparagement. Although this case is currently stayed pending the resolution of
our suit against IBM, we intend to vigorously defend this action. However,
if Red Hat is successful in its claim against us, our business and results of
operations could be materially harmed. Translation: we will be
bankrupted.
In addition, regulators or others in the Linux market
and some foreign regulators have initiated or in the future may initiate legal
actions against us, all of which may negatively impact our operations and future
operating performance.
Fluctuations in our operating results or the
failure of our operating results to meet the expectations of public market
analysts and investors may negatively impact our stock
price.
----------8<----------8<----------
[end of page
44]
----------8<----------8<----------
If the market for UNIX
continues to contract, our business will be harmed.
[end of page
45]
----------8<----------8<----------
Our Engagement Agreement
with the Law Firms representing us to enforce our intellectual property rights
may reduce our ability to raise additional
financing.
----------8<----------8<----------
Our
foreign-based operations and sales create special problems, including the
imposition of governmental controls and taxes and fluctuations in currency
exchange rates that could hurt our
results.
----------8<----------8<----------
[end of page 46]
If we are unable to retain key personnel in an intensely competitive
environment, our operations could be adversely affected.
Translation:
here's Darl's high on "technical expertise people"!
We need to retain
our management, technical, and support personnel. Competition for qualified
professionals in the software industry is intense, and departures of existing
personnel could be disruptive to our business and might result in the departure
of other employees. The loss or departure of any officers or key employees
could harm our ability to implement our business plan and could adversely affect
our operations. Our future success depends to a significant extent on the
continued service and coordination of our management team, particularly Darl C.
McBride, our President and Chief Executive Officer. Translation: as a stock
scam, that is.
----------8<----------8<----------
Our
stock price is volatile.
The trading price for our common stock has
been volatile, ranging from a low closing sales price of $1.09 in
mid-February 2003, to a high closing sales price of $20.50 per share in
October 2003, to a current sales price of $3.52 on March 29, 2005. The
share price has changed dramatically over short periods. We believe that the
changes in our stock price are affected by changing public perceptions
concerning the strength of our intellectual property claims and other factors
beyond our control. Public perception can change quickly and without any change
or development in our underlying business or litigation position. An investment
in our stock is subject to such volatility and, consequently, is subject to
significant risk. Translation: the changes in our stock price are due to our
continual operation of the Paintblaster® XP.
[end of page
47]
There are risks associated with the potential exercise of our
outstanding options.
----------8<----------8<----------
The
resale of common shares by BayStar may have an adverse impact on the market
value of our stock and the existing holders of our common
stock.
----------8<----------8<----------
Our stock price
could decline further because of the activities of short
sellers.
Our stock has attracted the interest of short sellers. The
activities of short sellers could further reduce the price of our stock or
inhibit increases in our stock price. Translation: we are planning a
manipulative short squeeze. The blame game
continues!
Looks like I have to change my signature,
then.---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, file your 10-K and your 10-Q! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mpellatt on Saturday, April 02 2005 @ 01:41 AM EST |
| We believe that we compete favorably with many of our competitors in a number
of respects, including product performance, functionality and price, networking
capability and breadth of hardware compatibility.
The serious
lack of support for current PC hardware was an ongoing issue with
OpenServer some 10 years ago. Has this really been sorted ??
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
