decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A Little Context on the Stock
Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:15 AM EDT

I know there is a lot of feverish interest in the delisting notice SCO got from Nasdaq, because I am getting a lot of email. But here's why I am not joining in much. First, I know nothing about the stock market, so I'd be foolish to pretend to understand one thing about it.

Second, I remember what SCO said back in 2003 in a quarterly filing with the SEC:

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES -- Since inception, we have funded our operations primarily through loans from our major stockholder and through sales of common and preferred stock. During the first two quarters of 2003, our operations produced positive cash flow for the first time in our history. Although we believe that we will have sufficient financial resources to fund operations for the remainder of fiscal year 2003, however, if we are unable to continue to generate positive cash from operations we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.

So I figure SCO will find a way to keep going. The major stockholder is, presumably, Ralph Yarro, the Chairman of the Board. So, while it may be of casual interest to me to hear about a possible delisting, what I care about is the litigation. That's my beat, and I can't see SCO not funding that to the bitter end by hook or by crook, so to speak.

However, part of what we are doing here at Groklaw is telling every significant bit of SCO's story, and it is notable that the stock is now lower in price than it was when the litigation saga began, as you can see from this interview in November of 2003 when McBride crowed about the stock price going up to Barbara Darrow of CRN. You will remember Ms. Darrow, from Microsoft's list of "balanced" journalists. Anyway, McBride told her that the stock had jumped from about a dollar to $14 at that point. Yesterday, SCO closed at 0.83. So, after all those notebooks of media clippings, the stock is lower in price today than when it all began. That doesn't mean some folks didn't make out like bandits along the way.

Here's a snip from the interview:

CRN:You're paying David Boies [of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP] about $9 million to pursue your claims against IBM?

Darl McBride: We are giving him 400,000 shares of stock and $1 million in cash. When I said we have $60 some million in cash [on hand at SCO], reduce the cash by $1 million and we take non-cash charge. David comes on, he's now a shareholder, he's rowing with us, and let's face it, he's added significant value to our company since February. Our stock was around a buck, now it's $14. That's some of the best money we've spent, not even money, some of the best stock we've issued. Now we're broadening our scope and going after the cleanup project. The breadth of damage that's been done here, it's like cleaning up the Exxon Valdez... the code violation that is going on inside of Linux between derivative work, copyrighted work, it's not unsubstantial.

Ah, yes. The good old days, when SCO could say whatever it wished and it would get published like God's words on stone tablets.

So. Where is that code violation, SCO? That mountain?

No. Really. Exactly where? Line, file, and version please. Thanks.

As you'll recall, the Boies Schiller firm later decided it preferred stone cold cash up front instead of stock. Maybe it saw some handwriting on the wall? If so, it was suitably advised. There's another little snip I can't resist reminding you about. SCO has pushed the idea that the only reason Open Source members have taken a stand against SCO's litigation tactics is because IBM makes us do it. Notice that Darrow expressed otherwise:

CRN:Are you trying to evangelize them [VARs] to speak out in your behalf? It's clear the open source crowd needs no encouragement to tell their side of the story.

McBride: My first reaction was we needed to create a counterbalance [to the vocal open sourcers]. We're on the side of the silent majority...but at the end of the day it's around who's right. We're rock solid on our claims... and we're not sitting here day in day out trying to counter the stones being thrown at us. We have a business to run. Our employees are reenergized around the movement back to Unix, reenergized around the role SCO is playing... . Our roots in the Unix business are strong and won't be blown over by a little bit of Linux wind.

CRN: Conspiracy theorists say you guys are acting as Microsoft's pawn against open source and the General Public License [GPL]. Can you comment?

McBride: The funny part is we didn't even talk to Microsoft about this outside the normal public interest level things... when we talk to them it's about what's happening in the marketplace. [I know] there is this feeling that something's happening here....

CRN: What is the 'Chicago 7'?

McBride: All the big guys, HP, IBM, Oracle, etc. (For more on the Chicago 7, see story.) Or look at the massive amount of money IBM is pushing into Linux companies all over the world.... IBM is the master of creating an illusion that they're being attacked by this big brutal bully SCO when they're the ones attacking us. They're the ones doing all the behind-the-scenes work.

Well. I wouldn't say *all*. I believe I have chronicled some behind-the-scenes work by SCO and the gang. And Darl did say he saw a need to create a "counterbalance". Whatever did he have in mind? Funny about that word "balance". I don't think it means what they think it does. But if I were Novell, I'd want to know more about exactly how SCO did create a counterbalance, because I'd want to measure excessive publication in the slander of title counterclaim. If SCO used others and encouraged others to push SCO's message, it might just matter to the case. [ Update: I might, for example, be interested in who three blind mice is in real life. Look at his output and his endurance in attacking me, despite my having answered him on that last link, and then consider his argument that no one would volunteer one's time without being paid money.]

And as for SCO's fantasy about the so-called Chicago 7, all of them have now testified that SCO is simply wrong about what happened and who said what. There was no conspiracy. Once again, it was, it seems, more about what McBride imagined than anything in reality. And I've just carefully traced for you proof that SCO's unfounded paranoia about Groklaw and its nonexistent "untoward relationship" with IBM was entirely inside SCO's imagination.

A little truthiness on McBride's part there, I'd say, as to Microsoft. Not even that. Mike Anderer and BayStar's Lawrence Goldfarb have already told us about Microsoft's role, so it's hardly a "conspiracy *theory*" that Microsoft was enthralled with the idea of SCO suing IBM and saw an opportunity to be helpful. I'd call it more a line of evidence in the litigation. Unfortunately, Mr. Anderer's deposition is sealed. "We didn't even talk to Microsoft about this..." Wow, Darl. Wow, indeed.

Anyway, that's the story about the delisting. As Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols points out, there are many steps to go even if a delisting does happen, so it's not anything firm, by any means. And SCO won't stop in the litigation, I don't believe, until the court stops them or they go into bankruptcy and the trustee hits the brakes.

I loved the detail in the Darrow interview where Darl says that the lawyers were "sharpening their steak knives" to go after the GPL. Mwahahahahaha... It's a funny thing, but it seems to be very hard for lawyers to understand the GPL. They are like Keystone Kops in their pursuit. Maybe it was a good thing they don't understand it. It keeps them cutting away furiously at the plate instead of the steak.

Anyway, I hope SCO stays listed, personally, and smack dab in the spotlight. I prefer to track publicly traded companies. It's a lot easier. Finally, just to be clear about what this was all about, I give you the wisdom of Darl McBride:

McBride: ... Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.

A noble dream, indeed, m'lord. To be paid for other people's work, contrary to their expressed wishes, without having to do any work yourself. Whatever happened to making money the old-fashioned way? That part of SCO's dream is dead and buried, I'd say. No, wait! It lives! It is resurrected in the Microsoft dream to be paid for patents it claims it holds covering functionality in some unnamed applications that run on Linux. Or something like that. Microsoft has been a little vague on the details. I certainly think the Supreme Court's recent ruling on obviousness opens up a rich and fun-filled future [note Legal Pad's Roger Parloff's take, also in News Picks]. Like the FAT patent, for just one example. That was the issue PubPat raised on that patent, obviousness, as well as prior art. Although the USPTO in the reexamination process finally upheld the patent, that was under the old patent understanding of obviousness, and it wasn't in a court of law. The new Supreme Court ruling seems to open a door to take a closer look at all previously issued patents under the newly declared standard. Vonage, for example, has already filed a request for a retrial, based on the Supreme Court's decision on obviousness. Even after the FAT patent was upheld at the USPTO, PubPat's Daniel Ravicher said this:

Public Patent Foundation President Dan Ravicher said his organization disagreed with the Patent Office's conclusions and offered a broader critique.

"Microsoft has won a debate where they were the only party allowed to speak, in that the patent re-examination process bars the public from rebutting arguments made by Microsoft," he told CNET News.com. "We still believe these patents are invalid and that a process that gave the public equal time to present its positions would result in them being found as such."

Like in court, I believe he meant. I think it's clear there will never be another FAT patent properly issued. That brings to mind the soon-to-begin Peer to Patent review project. Microsoft has agreed to have the project examine some of its patent applications, and it is a sponsor of the project and a participant since October:

The Institute for Information Law & Policy at New York Law School announced today that companies holding more than 6% of the total number of this year's patents will submit their patent applications for "open peer review" under a pilot project at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). GE, HP, IBM, Microsoft and Red Hat, the Lead Sponsors of the "Community Patent Review" initiative, will allow some of their patent applications to be reviewed by the public and consent to have public commentary submitted directly to the USPTO for official consideration. The pilot will launch in early 2007 and focus on published but not-yet-granted patent applications relating to computer software.

Microsoft is perhaps going over its list and checking it twice as we speak. But I know if Microsoft asked me to sign any patent peace agreement, I'd now certainly insist on them providing some evidence that the specific patents claimed would stand up to obviousness scrutiny. And I would certainly make them be specific, precisely because of the new ruling by the highest court. None of that "maybe someday a patent somehow might be infringed" stuff. Ah, the larks ahead! O frabjous day! Thank you, Supreme Court.

I hope you also noticed that FSF's Brett Smith yesterday on Groklaw said:

Microsoft provides coupons for SUSE to companies, who then go to Novell to redeem the coupons and get their copy of the software. Those coupons procure the conveyance of lots of free software.

Our lawyers have seen the terms of the deal under NDA—unfortunately, they're still secret—but they're confident that Microsoft is already conveying GPLed software under this agreement. The coupons are the most direct proof; there is some other evidence to support that idea as well.

The patent bullying has definitely diminished in scope and conceivable effectiveness, I'd say, as of this week.

The question is how much will SCO have to pay for saying such things to the media? That Darrow interview helps IBM to quantify as of November of 2003:

VARBusiness: Are customers changing their Linux purchasing pattern since SCO sent out warning letters?

McBride: A research report came out saying 80 percent of users had not slowed down. Our take on that is 20 percent have. So one out of five. We sent out our letter three to four months ago and in that period, one out of five have changed. We think that's significant. We only mailed letters out to 1,500 companies. I would argue that is one out of five out there...it could be 100 percent of all[the companies] we sent it to, we don't think that's actually the case. Anecdotally, I can tell you... it has an impact. People are concerned. One transportation company said, 'We don't want to be on the wrong side of you guys on this. What do we do to get clean?'

So, at least that's a nice starting point for IBM. Ah, the mainstream media. How much of what Darl said came true? Um...nothing so far? So, where were the hard-hitting questions asking him to substantiate *anything* he said? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.


  


A Little Context on the Stock | 308 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:36 AM EDT
tick tick tick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Importance of the recent prices
Authored by: div_2n on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
The day Ransom Love resigned, the price closed at THE all-time low of $0.60. The
next day, Darl was named the new CEO and the stock closed at $0.76. Yesterday,
the stock hit $0.77. The important point being that if the stock closes at or
below $0.76, then any and all added value for investors that Darl has brought to
the table will be completely gone.

Why is this important? Typically, public companies fire CEOs when things such as
this happen. I know, I know, SCOX is anything but typical.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: Thalaska on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:44 AM EDT
Corrections for PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: Thalaska on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:45 AM EDT
Off Topics here with Clicky Links Please

[ Reply to This | # ]

O Frabjous Day
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:53 AM EDT
Callou callay...

It's funny how so many 'Alice' or other Lewis Carrol quotes are creeping into
Groklaw these days. It's almost as surreal as this lawsuit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mail Fraud?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 11:58 AM EDT
VARBusiness: Are customers changing their Linux purchasing pattern since SCO
sent out warning letters?

McBride: A research report came out saying 80 percent of users had not slowed
down. Our take on that is 20 percent have. So one out of five. We sent out our
letter three to four months ago and in that period, one out of five have
changed. We think that's significant.

If Darl doesn't win in court thus invalidating all his "IP" claims,
will he be facing mail fraud charges for his letters?

By his own words, there was an effect.



[ Reply to This | # ]

OT- Off Topic
Authored by: DBLR on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 12:00 PM EDT

Please make your links clickable.




---

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is that mountain?
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 12:02 PM EDT
>>So. Where is that code violation, SCO? That mountain?<<

In the heart of prairie Saskatchewan.

Real tall mountain, there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 12:03 PM EDT
Sorry Thalaska but 'corrections HAS to be in the title.

---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic question.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 12:09 PM EDT
PJ,
You just mentioned the patent decisions. In the near future, could you arrange
for one of your excellent lawyer resources to provide an analysis of the real
impact of the recent patent decisions. I have read the press reports, and they
don't seem to get it, likewise, I have read the opinion and it doesn't seem to
be as broad as some are saying.
The only place where I think I can get a clear picture is here on Groklaw.
Keep up the good work!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mwahahahah!
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 12:36 PM EDT
>>We're rock solid on our claims...<<

Yeah, Darl. As solid as quicksand. You change your story every time you get
debunked.

>>...Darl says that the lawyers were "sharpening their steak
knives" to go after the GPL...<<

How do you sharpen rubber knives? IBM's got all the steel.



---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Listed/unlisted: what it really means
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 01:15 PM EDT

Anyway, I hope SCO stays listed, personally. I prefer to track public companies. It's a lot easier.

There is a lot of misunderstanding, including by PJ, of exactly what it means if SCOX loses its listing on NASDAQ.

It actually means less than most people assume. The shares will continue to trade, just not on NASDAQ. You will still be able to track the price on Yahoo finance, just as easily as now. And Yahoo finance will still have links to financial statements and SEC filings. You will still be able to trade the stock on Ameritrade and other internet discount brokers. About 1600 companies are traded OTC (compared with about 3000 on NASDAQ). The total number of shares traded on both is about the same (roughly one billion per day) but of course the dollar volume is less for OTC stocks because the prices tend to be lower.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Photos of the OPIP Protest
Authored by: Filter on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 02:06 PM EDT
Anyone remember the 'grassroots' protesters who came out in SCO's defense, I
remember some hilarious photos of the signs with OPIP (Other Peoples IP). It
looked like it was wives and kids of SCO employees out there walking the
pavement for SCO, calling Open Source programmers and users thieves. I always
thought that was sinking one more step lower for SCO to include those innocent
family members in such an ugly accusation.

Does anyone have a link to those photos, or an archive of them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Passing Wind
Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT
D McB. <i>"Our roots in the Unix business are strong and won't be
blown over by a little bit of Linux wind.</i>

Oh, so much to say, so little time.

BSF = Army Core of Engineers. SCO-rleans... meet Katrina Linux!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Major stockholder
Authored by: OrlandoNative on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 02:52 PM EDT
Back in 2003 that would have been the Canopy Group. Now it's probably Yarrow;
didn't he get the SCO investment as a "going away and don't come back"
present from Canopy when he left? lol

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another abuse of justice system by JUDGE
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 03:09 PM EDT
I found this article through digg and think it would be relevant to groklaw The $67 Million Pants

[ Reply to This | # ]

Which insiders did bail out and when?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 03:39 PM EDT
Insiders used to own ca 45% of the company (I think I looked at the figures
about 6 months ago) and now they're down to 27%. Anyone have an idea which ones
have sold out?

J.K.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT
> So I figure SCO will find a way to keep going. The major
> stockholder is, presumably, Ralph Yarro, the Chairman of
> the Board.

He is now, but at the time it was Canopy. Mr. Yarro was always willing to spend
other people's money. Would be fine with me if he chooses to pour his personal
fortune down the SCO rathole, though.

> Anyway, I hope SCO stays listed, personally. I prefer to
> track public companies.

I believe they remain public for regulatory purposes even if they are delisted.

---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: GafLinux on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 04:51 PM EDT
Yarrow was the president of the Canopy Group, which is a company that Ray Noorda
founded to fund various tech companies. As a result of a very messy legal issue
(reported in Groklaw), Yarrow now owns all the SCO stock previously owned by
Canopy. For those who may not be aware, the late Ray Noorda was also one of the
founders of Novell and ran Novell until 1993.

---
Jerry Feldman
Treasurer, Boston Linux and Unix
http://www.blu.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

price paid
Authored by: glitch on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 06:08 PM EDT
The whole system has paid a price, the court system has been seen in a whole new
light.

The longer this thing drags out the worse our system looks, not the intended
consequence.

I'm sure that off the record talk is starting to get very pointed.

Scox stock is sinking just like the rest of the story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX stock higher, bouyed by Groklaw report
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 06:08 PM EDT
No, I don't believe that either, but in the interests of fair reporting it must
be noted that SCOX stock closed higher today. That probably indicates that the
last one out the door forgot to turn off the lights or they found a little more
of Novell's money to spend or Darl's flight to China (no extradition treaty) was
delayed. Guess we'll just have to stay tuned. ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's also the Russell Microcap
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 08:00 PM EDT

There's been some discussion of whether SCOX will remain in the Russell Microcap
Index. Many institutions buy indexed stocks with little evaluation. Dropping out
of any index would drop the demand for a stock.

We may know in the next couple of months.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, May 02 2007 @ 10:11 PM EDT
"Anyway, I hope SCO stays listed, personally, and smack dab in the
spotlight. "

Then again, given their cash situation, plus what Novell is claiming, they might
not last long enough to get delisted.


---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[Update] ...interested in who three blind mice is in real life.
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 12:08 AM EDT
Completely amateur forensic analysis.

Definitions:

TBM1 = First (Lessing) poster claiming to be "three blind mice"

TBM2 = Second (metafilter) poster claiming to be "three blind mice"

My opinion:

1) TBM1 is male. Women do not "overcompensate" for the language disparity defaulting to male pronouns.

2) TBM1 has a legal education to some extent or degree; TBM2 does not or does not show it.

3) TBM1 and TBM2 probably know each other, but are not the same person. The typing style of TBM1 is a dead giveaway, I expected to see TBM2 posting in the all-lower fashion and did not.

4) TBM2 is European. Uses rare word "lagniappe" (French, means something extra for nothing) and says "IPR" instead of "IP."

These are my deductions from what I read. I noticed more style and less content in the postings.

---
"Fat operating systems spend most of their energy supporting their own fat."
--Nicholas Negroponte, MIT Media Lab, rediff.com, Apr 2006

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Projection? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 02:28 AM EDT
    • Projection? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 02:32 AM EDT
  • Lagniappe - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 02:50 AM EDT
A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 02:47 AM EDT
As you'll recall, the Boies Schiller firm later decided it preferred stone cold cash up front instead of stock. Maybe it saw some handwriting on the wall?
Well, IMHO, you're quite stupid if you accept stock from a company you do litigation for. While the stock may rise, it can also fall. And then it takes a very big man not to get drawn down into the mud and try to win your case not only with every legal but also every questionable tactic you can think of.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about posters who keep asking you about the $50,000 OSDL grant?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT
Are we all working for SCO as well?

A simple "No, I did not receive tens of thousands of dollars from OSDL
while it was chaired by an IBM employee" would suffice, by the way, but you
keep on deleting these questions. After all, what's important is that Groklaw
document the Truth According to PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"So I figure SCO will find a way to keep going"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Remember that what got them going and kept them going so
long was the money fed to them from M$ through third
parties. But once they got caught red-handed, they were
forced to distance themselves from this embarrassing mess.

Yarro was in this to make a buck on a pump-and-dump. He's
not going to throw his winnings back into the pot. I'm
sure he's already written off the "value" of the stock he
owns. Maybe he's waiting for the right time to pull
a "Feldman" (think Bre-X).

I've said it before, I think their end-game now is to drag
it out until they're in bankruptcy, then they can save
face by claiming they didn't lose, they were just forced
to give in because big evil IBM forced them into the
ground. They know they can't win. What they're afraid of
is a summary judgement against them shutting it down
before they run out of cash. So why would they look for
more cash?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How'd other SCO shareholders fare?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT

SCO used to be the biggest investment in the "Royce Technology Value
Fund" - yet the fund doesn't seem to have done badly.
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundnet/Snapshot.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=RY
TVX&hsection=fundscoverQT
http://www.threenorth.com/sco/cohen.html
Wonder how they got out.

Anyone recall how the other players in SCO stock games did?
How'd BayStar's SCO position end up? Morgan Keenan? The rest of the PIPE
fairies? S2 / Anderer's?

It'd be nice to hear that some of them lost their shirt - but my guess is that
they protected their positions with their likely knowledge that this was going
nowhere fast.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Little Context on the Stock
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2007 @ 06:25 PM EDT
I was one of those guys that made a killing off the stock... by shorting it when
it hit 20+ (!). Well, ok, not a killing, but certainly enough for a good meal
at a restaurant and a toast to the idiots at SCO who thought they could get away
with stealing all the hard work I have been involved with for the last 20 years!
And since I'm sure PJ wouldn't have done it herself I gave Grok a big'ol salute
when I closed out that meager little position a few months ago and drank an
especially expensive cup (well, would you believe a large strawberry shake?) on
her behalf.

But I wouldn't recommend that anyone mess with the stock right now. There's a
reason why the Nas delists companies that fall below $1. And yes, even for a
company as manipulative as SCO it does matter. Once you start trading pink
sheets the price can be far more seriously manipulated. Stay away from it,
period.

-Matt

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

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