Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
I'd just like to thank PJ and everyone else who's researching this case here;
it's nice to find a resource full of serious comments on a media case.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Simon
Farnsworth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
The most remarkable thing about all this is that both articles are on the "Salt
Lake Tribune" (Utah!) web site. It could be that they're doing a special about
the whole SCO-IBM case.
Would McBride read the Salt Lake Tribune at home? MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 05:39 AM EDT |
Two links for a delicious comment from Peter Skarzynski and Pierre Loewe:
http://news.com.com/2010-107
1_3-5062414.html and http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1
107_2-5062504.html
The content of the story is identical on both links ;-) MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:24 AM EDT |
this may be close to what you're looking for:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001
102542&owner=include james anderson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
I was wondering through all this if anyone would bring up William Della Croce
Jr.
as an example of "what not to do". Steve
Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
MathFox,
I'm not surprised that the news.com and zdnet.com stories are identical. Both
are properties of cnet.com. D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
You can google for the CEO "Randy Edgerton", a Calgary marathoner, to find TAK
Group information.
There is a Salt Lake City, Utah connection from Sep, 2002 when TAK Group bought
Lubetrak.
Brief company profile:
http://www.lin
e56.com/directory/company.asp?CompanyID=3528
Sep. 2002 they launch a web service:
http://www.petroret
ail.net/npn/2002/0211/0211tuin.asp
Sep. 9, 2002 they buy Lubetrak, headquarted in ....
Salt Lake City, Utah
http://www.lubetrak.com/new
s/Sept_09_2002.pdf Tossie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
Seems that SCO has sold it's first licences. See http://www.
infoworld.com/article/03/08/11/HNscolicense_1.html Antony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:08 AM EDT |
Read Robert Hahn's "Trade Press an Embarrassment to the Industry"
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zdnn/tb.tpt/@thr
ead@217622@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@217622?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1&PAGETP=2100&N
ODEID=1104&SHOST=zdnet.com.com David Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
Like I have said in many a comment, McBride needs to be looked at for SEC
violations. In any case, when this SCO case goes down, the comment that they
will pay legal fees will simply drain SCO, but the insiders who have been
selling out very frequently, will retain the money.(Check SCOX on Yahoo, click
Insiders)
The only way to really make these fakirs go away for all time is to put them in
jail. Nobody will want to try claiming property that never belonged to them
again.
Respectfully IANAL. Fooboy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=26912 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=26912 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=26912 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_full.asp?kind=shortint&symbol=SCOX&sel
ected=SCOX quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
Lubetrak, and TEKgroup, now a leader in eLubrication. Fooboy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
http://www.viwes.com/invest/
shorts/sum6.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
Hellwig again
http://linux-abi.sourceforge.net/quatermass [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
quatermass
I saw that link on the Yahoo board. If you look closdely you will see that this
is a patch to LINUX to allow it to run UNIX applications. All this proves is
that some code was given to LINUX. Unless SCO points to this code as their IP
placed into LINUX without their permission, this site contains no usefull
information. abtm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
So we have a well-reasoned, clueful article in WSJ
and 2 FUDDy articles in Forbes, neither of which spoke to the issues, more to
personalities and tangents.
We can only hope the higher merit article reaches the right eyes. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
Blake Stowel says the Fortune 500 licensee isn't Sun or Microsoft (http://www.itworld.com/Man/268
1/030812sco/) and also that it wasn't just one or two licenses but thousands
of pounds. Anyone who wants to check the Fortune 500 list for likely suspects
can find it here http://www.forbes.com/2003
/03/26/500sland.html
I don't think the info on the number of shares being shorted is too relevant -
it is nearly a month out of date now and a lot has happened in that month. It
will be interesting to see how the situation has changed when the new data comes
out but the 23rd is a Saturday so we've got a bit longer to wait than usual.
With regard to the licensing scheme they have still got the pricing on their
site (http://www.sco.com/scosourc
e/description.html) so those people on Yahoo who say it has disappeared
aren't looking hard enough. Quite possibly the call you back in a week response
is because they realised most of the enquirers would be trouble makers so want
to filter out those who are really interested. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
Oh dear, my lack of knowledge of US business publications is showing up - I
searched on Fortune 500 and got to Forbes and just assumed they were related
rather than competitors. I presume the lists will be pretty similar anyway.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
Adam,
Not to worry, and to add to the confusion Fortune has two seperate "500"
lists. The the "Top 500 Financial Institutions" and the "Top 500 Manufacturing
and Industrial Companies", and both lists are frequently referred to as the
"Fortune 1000".
Since I read neither, I cannot comment on any differences 'twixt the two rags
editorial policies... D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
"the story of SCO selling about 119,000 shares of their company since March,
totalling $1.2 million. Prior to March, there had been no insider sales for over
a year, according to Washington Service, a company that does this kind of
tracking"
I am just a simple fellow from Kansas. Perhaps someone can explain what an
insider is? Was Martha Stewart an Imclone executive?
For example can someone explain this bit of finance to me?
"SCO's warning about the lawsuit's side effects appears in a list of risk
disclosures that companies must provide to investors. The filing also permits
two major shareholders to sell a total of 1 million shares of SCO's 12.2 million
outstanding shares of stock.
http://news.com.com/
2100-1007-994811.html?tag=fd_top
Who is vista.com?
The first shareholder is Vista.com Chief Executive John R. Wall, who obtained a
6.6 percent stake, or 800,000 shares, of SCO stock. Wall received the stock in
connection with a transaction involving a SCO investment in Vista.com, a SCO
license to market Vista.com's services and a $1 million convertible note SCO
acquired that is payable by Vista.com. The transaction took place in the quarter
ended Oct. 31, according to SCO's annual report."
So here's a guy who was "given" 800,000 shares valued at $0.78 a piece or so in
October. He now wants to start selling them for perhaps $10-15 per share as
early as March. Every body notices Canopy Group selling off it's under
performing Vultus (that sucking sound is shareholder equity being hoovered
straight into Canopy Groups coffers). Neither Mr. Wall nor his company even get
a passing mention in discussions about possible insider trading or the Martha
Stewart indictment:) That convertible note that vista.com is covering for SCO
would seem to take care of the purchase of the 800,000 shares quite nicely
doesn't it? That's at least a multi-million dollar windfall by anybody's
accounting if Mr. Wall has cashed out by now.
The other big winner was the investment banker who was trying to find a buyer
for SCO itself. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
I found this about Martha http://econom
ics.about.com/cs/finance/a/insider_trading.htm quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
Chart of SCO stock
htt
p://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l
Where did you get all of text from "So here's a guy who" and on - is this your
opinion or a quote? quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
quatermass Sorry about that!
Everything between "SCO's warning about.....according to SCO's annual report."
was a single quote. I inserted the question "Who is vista.com?"
and failed to clean up after my edit. Yes I own those comments that follow. The
SCO filing permits a sale of 6.6 percent of the companies stock. The description
of the vista.com transaction is very "Canopy-like" in it's twists and turns. If
this were a Hillary Clinton commodity futures trade valued at $100,000, or a
Martha Stewart stop loss order valued at $40,000 it would be looked into and
widely reported. Did Mr. Wall make a pile of cash worth millions in a few short
months because of a law suit brought by a company he partnered with? At first
glance it certainly appears that way. This filing also permits the sale of stock
by an investment banker who has been shopping SCO around to prospective buyers
with no success. So of course it was a perfect time for the Web Services
Acquisition. I just can't figure out why they bought Vultus, I heared AOL was
available:) Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
quartermass,
in re: your post "Chart of SCO stock ..."
who in ze 'ell are you resonding to? What the FUD is your point? D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
D. That would be me. Since this is my third post, and my "Digital Dyslexia" is
really in full bloom tonight, good night all! Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 09:29 AM EDT |
D, I think, I figured out the chart post
Harlan said "$10-15 per share as early as March"
SCO stock was very comfortably and easily in the sub $5 range in March, see the
chart.
So I think Harlan or Harlan's source article is wrong. If there is a source
article, I'd like see it too. anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Yep that's it. Harlan already answered. $10-$15 is not part of the deal from
March. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
anon:
No, I pointed out that the filing was necessary to permit him to start selling
shares for PERHAPS $10-15 per share as early as March. As you can see, the IBM
suit is mentioned as part of a warning contained in the same SEC filing. The
countdown to AIX termination had already been announced. It's that termination
threat that fueled the speculation that IBM would buy them out. Carrying out
that hollow promise should have caused the stock to decline, not go up. When the
deadline approached with no buyout from IBM their tactics changed to threatening
Linux distributors and users. Under the US Federal system if you want immediate
injunctive relief, and you are sure to win on any appeal, you just post a bond
and ask for it. How much do you suppose IBM would get for damages for wrongfull
termination? Yeah SCO doesn't have that much market capitalization, so a bond
that size is out of the question. They also would have to convince a judge that
their claims have merit and that they are likely to prevail at trial.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
AFAIK, pulling the license, even if it was allowable, would only help SCO if IBM
were to settle or pay them off as a result. IANAL, but the contract doesn't seem
to have any term which could be construed as saying "You can do X, if you pay Y
extra"
If SCO's investors believed SCO could pull the license, as they (SCO) said they
would and had, then this would run up the stock price probably.
IANAL, but I agree on the preliminary point, to the limit of my (very limited)
knowledge. I think SCO would probably also have to show that by not granting the
preliminary, they would lose something which could not be made up by money
later.
One last point on the June 16th press release. It seems pretty clear they said
they'd filed the amended complaint, and filed for the permanent injunction, on
June 16th ("today"), was that in fact the case? quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
"AFAIK, pulling the license, even if it was allowable, would only help SCO if
IBM were to settle or pay them off as a result."
That's one of the points I'm making. Another is that they don't appear to be
controlling things exactly, just that they appear to be manipulating things.
Remember you are just as guilty of insider trading if you only use information
that isn't available to the public to reduce your losses.
Everyone was led to believe these guys were going to go after folks who were
using their libraries without a license, e.g. FSM Labs went after Lineo while
Caldera still owned them over the Real Time Operating System patents. Caldera
ponied up, but FSM Labs wouldn't pay for their use of SCO's libraries. IIRC even
Linus mentioned this at the time on the kernel.org lists.
If you knew that SCO was going to sue their own Unix licensees over Linux, and
you were given 800,000 shares or an option on 200,000 shares (Sun Microsystems)
before the public was let in on the secret - that's a huge advantage. That's
bigger news than the 119,000 shares that the executives have given
themselves. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|