Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Novell Operating Systems Software Unix

Investors Bailing On SCO Stock, SCOX Plummets 368

Posted by kdawson
from the is-it-wetter-underwater-than-when-it-rains dept.
HailDorothy writes "SCO's stock price is plummeting in the aftermath of Judge Kimball's ruling that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights, as we discussed earlier. '[W]e will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said in a public statement issued in a futile attempt to calm investors. SCO's stock price has fallen 70 percent during trading today, reaching a 52-week low. It looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program. As Judge Kimbell noted in his ruling, it's unlikely that Novell will ever be able to collect on those royalties."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Investors Bailing On SCO Stock, SCOX Plummets

Comments Filter:
  • Woohoo (Score:5, Funny)

    by jshriverWVU (810740) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:30PM (#20217123)
    *opens champagne*
    • Re:Woohoo (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:59PM (#20217507)
      The amazing thing is that having been found liable for slandering Novell's title, they're still doing it.

      http://www.sco.com/company/profile.html [sco.com]

      "SCO owns the core UNIX operating system"

      Uh, no. How long do they get to keep saying things like this before they're up for contempt of court too?
      • by Gription (1006467) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:35PM (#20217949)
        I'm just looking at this as a stock trading opportunity. Anything dropping like this just has to bounce!
        • Dead cat bounce (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:57PM (#20218897)
          > Anything dropping like this just has to bounce!

          Looking to cash in on the 'ol dead cat bounce? Considering SCOX has always managed to bouce back over the $1 mark to avoid delisting I suspect you might be right. Not going to bet money on it though, this time even former cheerleaders like Daniel Lyons at Forbes say they are dead. Darl has a big ol fork sticking out of his forehead.

          Yes they will file a desperate appeal with every court that might possibly have jurisdiction. No it isn't going to help them do anything other than drag this thing out to the end of the year, January at the best. Then it is over and the patent wars will move from saber rattling and into the shooting phase.
          • Re:Dead cat bounce (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday August 14, 2007 @06:32AM (#20222755) Homepage
            Being unable to service that Novell licensing debt, makes it look like they were trading whilst insolvent, they could possibly 'bounce' from a civil to criminal court. Continuing to spend money on lawyers on a losing case whilst they cannot pay an outstanding debt to Novell puts them in more than just a tricky position.

            The share trading that occurred during this whole process is likely to come under review in what is now starting to look like nothing more than a pump and dump scheme ie. sue IBM for billions with no hope of winning but have a sudden influx of funds to fund the case which just happens to come from one of IBM biggest competitors.

        • by twitter (104583) on Monday August 13, 2007 @09:04PM (#20219677) Homepage Journal

          Anything dropping like this just has to bounce!

          It may make a splash, but most people just flush it.

      • Re:Woohoo (Score:4, Funny)

        by Soloact (805735) on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:21PM (#20218509) Homepage Journal
        I wonder how much longer they'll be able to afford the bandwidth to keep that site online.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by v1 (525388)
        SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.

        Too bad that's too long for a sig, that's absolutely hilarious
  • Victory! (Score:4, Funny)

    by beheaderaswp (549877) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:31PM (#20217125)
    Ah the sweet smell of victory!

    Now bring on Microsoft!

    Wait... um....

    Damn... this ain't gonna be so easy.

    Where's the Tylenol?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by EvilRyry (1025309)
      We just need to prove that Microsoft doesn't actually own the rights to Windows and that someone else actually does. Then Microsoft will own that party a whole lot of money for all the Windows licenses they sold over the years. Hopefully, MS will then go bankrupt and its evil reign of tyranny will be over!

      Of course, this party will become very rich very quickly so it will need to be someone that we can trust... I'd like to offer up myself for the job. Yes, I know it will be hard, but I think I can handle it
  • Darl? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:31PM (#20217131)
    When are we going to get to see Darl McBride's head on the end of a stick? Or is that asshat not going to be accountable?
  • Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:33PM (#20217149) Journal
    The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here.
    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beheaderaswp (549877) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:38PM (#20217219)
      Face it. If you get your information from press releases you deserve what you get.
    • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sholden (12227) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:42PM (#20217263) Homepage
      What do you think the probability that the courts might make a crazy judgement would be?

      How high would the stock go if that happened?

      It could have been a rational gamble^Winvestment depending on what you judge those two numbers to be.

    • by nuzak (959558)
      Hedge funds might have taken it on in the "high risk" column. Basically betting on the long odds.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:43PM (#20217287)
      If I'm reading Google's finance page correctly, almost 6 million shares changed hands today.

      http://finance.google.com/finance?q=scox [google.com]

      Stock cannot sell if someone isn't buying. Who's buying?

      Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.

      I don't believe that there were than many people betting that it would go up again. Not with the approximately $9 million dollars it would take to have that stock last Friday.

      Who's buying the stock and why are they buying it?

      I can understand everyone wanting to sell it. I don't understand anyone buying almost 6 millions shares of it today.

      Unless it's another scan by SCO to buy stock options from their executives. Trying to empty the company's coffers before Novell gets its cut or IBM beats them.
      • Who's buying the stock

        Me.

        and why are they buying it?

        Gag gifts for the next decade and the pretense of luxury. Some people snort coke with a twenty dollar bill. I curb my dog with stock certificates.

      • by stox (131684) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:52PM (#20217389) Homepage
        A lot of today's buys may have been people closing their short positions.
      • by gvc (167165)
        It is not to cover a mistake in short-selling. When I short sell, I promise to deliver the stock to you at a later date. So if, say, I sold it to you for $6, or even $1, I can buy it today at $0.50 and discharge my obligations to you, making a tidy profit. Sure I can hold on. But if the agreed price was $6, I don't make much more even if the stock drops to $0. And even if the agreed-on price was $1 I might as well wash my hands of it and be well clear of the final implosion.
      • by danpat (119101) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:52PM (#20217413) Homepage
        For people who don't know what a "short" is, it's where you borrow stock from the real holder, then sell it right away. Some time later, you buy it back at the new market price, and return it to its owner. The difference in what you sold the original stock and what you re-purchased it for is your profit. If the stock price rises, you lose money. If it drops, you make money.

        My guess would be that a large number of short positions were closed today. Lots of people had shorted SCOX (i.e. borrowed them, then sold them at some earlier date). Today, when the price dropped, they re-bought the stock at the current market price and returned them to their owners.
        I personally haven't had enough experience with the market to know how big an influx of short closers it would take to drive the stock price back up again.
        • by ToLu the Happy Furby (63586) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:11PM (#20217625)
          Well there were about 2.5 million shares short, so even if they all covered that wouldn't even account for half of today's volume. Plus there's no good reason for a short to cover now--yes, there is value in taking your gains up front rather than waiting for it to drop those last 40 cents, but anyone short this stock has to recognize that SCOX is very likely only a few months from bankruptcy which would mean the stock goes to zero and they don't have to buy back their shares at all.

          The more likely explanation for most of today's volume is day traders trying to make a quick buck on a suddenly liquid and highly volatile stock. Almost 6 million shares may have been traded, but my guess is that that represents a significantly lower number of shares traded back and forth multiple times.
          • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:48PM (#20218105) Homepage
            Well there were about 2.5 million shares short, so even if they all covered that wouldn't even account for half of today's volume. Plus there's no good reason for a short to cover now--yes, there is value in taking your gains up front rather than waiting for it to drop those last 40 cents, but anyone short this stock has to recognize that SCOX is very likely only a few months from bankruptcy which would mean the stock goes to zero and they don't have to buy back their shares at all.

            If I understand correctly, you cannot hold shorted shares forever, you can be forced to cover. Specifically this happens when the entity from which you borrowed your shares wants to sell them; you have to give them their shares back, and that means you have to cover your short. Since anyone holding actual SCOX shares would probably want to sell them now rather than before the stock drops another 40 cents, it could very well be that all the shorts were by necessity covered too.

            One thing I don't know is if you can, hypothetically, cover your short by buying the very same stock you shorted from the shareholder who wants to sell and is forcing you to cover.

            Either way it's quite possible that a large portion of the volume today was shareholders selling their shares, with the buyers being shorters forced to cover for those shareholders. The image you should be getting is of a lot of money spinning in circles in a porcelain vessel making a "ker-faaaaaaaash-glug-glug-glug" noise.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Rolgar (556636)
            I think it is included in the contract that when you borrow the stock, the owner you are borrowing from can force you to return it at any time so they can get their money out if they need to. Some people that were buying stock today were probably forced to by the people that they were borrowing from.

            SCO Group might have been the ones buying shares today. If they have more than 50 cents cash for every share of stock, this would increase the value of the remaining outstanding shares. Example, if their were
      • by KingSkippus (799657) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:53PM (#20217417) Homepage Journal

        Who's buying the stock and why are they buying it?

        If something's cheap enough, there will always be someone willing to buy it.

        If it gets low enough, someone could snag it if for no other reason than to liquidate its assets. All of those desks, computer monitors, and coffee machines have got to be worth something.

      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:54PM (#20217433) Homepage
        Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.

        I don't know about the volume of stock being shorted, but I remember several people on /. saying that they had tried to short, only to find that there were no shares available. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the volume today was shareholders cutting their losses and shorters covering their shorts and making a killing. Certainly I can't think of any other reason why somebody would be buying the stock today. Of course outside the short-sellers there aren't all that many people anxious to buy SCOX, that's why the price plummeted. The ones who did buy outright instead of covering a short are probably hoping for a dead-cat bounce that will let them make some money in the short term.

        It's too bad I just wasn't in the financial position for a medium-term investment a few years back. After the initial speculation (it -was- theoretically possible that SCO's code had gotten into Linux, much like it was theoretically possible that SCO owned the copyright for UNIX), there was a lengthy period where it was clear to us geeks that SCOX had no case (when they were finally forced to produce some evidence, and came up with nothing better than a few lines from standard header files) but wouldn't have been to the majority of investors. This was also around the time their stock was riding high. This would have been a perfect time to short. Though, as I mentioned, I'm obviously not the only one who had this idea and it may have already been to late to find any shares to short.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AuMatar (183847)
        Come on- this is the one time you can actually buy enough stock to own a significan part of a corporation. Wityh about 24M shares at .44, you can buy 1% for a mere 100K. Think of the geek cred you can get by teaming up with 20 or 30 people, buying 51% of SCO and firing Darl. Open up whatever code they do own while you're at it. Hell I'd be in for .01%, just find 5K more people. Or wait a day or 2 and it'll probably be cheaper.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dknj (441802)
          i know its a joke, but what do you do when novell and ibm come knocking on your door for that few million dollars SCO owes them? then everyone is out of their mere 100k and darl picks up a new cushy job as a CEO elsewhere.

          dk's final thought: meh not worth it.
    • by bbernard (930130)
      "The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here."

      Yeah, I just hope they weren't the guys running any of my 401k Mutual Funds...
    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:46PM (#20217329) Homepage Journal

      The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here.

      Well, here's how it was explained to me:

      SCO is so dirt-cheap right now that you can basically play with it without risk. At a dollar a share, you can buy a block of 100 shares and if it tanks you've lost a whopping $100. However, if by some miracle they actually managed to win, maybe that $100 would become a few thousand. Basically, it had a huge potential upside with almost no downside and a lot of people bought it just to see what might happen.

      Well, that upside just vanished and the stock plummeted. You could also interpret this as meaning that 70% of SCO's market value was based on potential lottery winnings, and when the lottery date came and went without SCO winning, its price dropped to compensate.

      But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.

      • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:58PM (#20217479) Homepage
        But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.

        Okay, but now I'm thirsty and I still don't know if I should trust your advice!
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Just Some Guy (3352)

          Okay, but now I'm thirsty and I still don't know if I should trust your advice!

          I have to salt my dog's food so that it drinks enough water to keep from being dehydrated.

          Which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, but it's all I could think of that seemed to fit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032)
      I wouldn't infer that at all. More like, some of them thought it was worth a gamble that IBM might pay SCO to fuck off, or that MSFT would buy them out, or any other long-shot scenario.

      -jcr
      • by Jugalator (259273)
        You have a point there... That combined with the low share cost may make most sense to me. Not that they'd win, but that they just maybe would pull of some PR stunt that bumped the stock a little so they could sell.
    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

      by pilgrim23 (716938) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:52PM (#20217409)
      Obviously they could not tell their Caldera from a hole in the ground....
    • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:56PM (#20217447)
      You can still trade in state bonds issued by Czarist Russia. Should Russia ever claim legal succession of the Czarist times, they'd have to pay. You get them for a penny a billion or something like that. From time to time, it spikes sharply (to two pennies) whenever some Russian ruler ponders aloud that he might consider thinking about considering ... you get the idea.

      But that aside, it's quite likely that investors don't know jack about IT. How else do you want to explain dot.com? We all know (at least I hope that me and a few friends ain't the only ones) that this HAD TO collapse. It couldn't fly. I guess anyone with a background in BA and IT knew it. Just, those people are very, very rare and they usually used that knowledge for a quite legal get-quick-rich scheme, so they shut their mouth and cashed in.

      They generally believe in large corporations. Usually this belief is justified. There is no chance in hell that Coke's ever going under. No matter what happens, no matter how bad the economy, no matter what crisis, no matter what war. Coke will survive it.

      It's also likely that they didn't realize that pretty much the complete asset of SCO hangs on this suit. SCO is a pretty large company. Or was, at least, but it still has a name. Names and brands are quite powerful in the investment biz (mostly for the formentioned reason of survival). Virtually no large corps hang on just one single product.

      Then there's the tendency of justice to know jack about IT either. So the chance to get a favorable verdict for SCO was actually not really zero. There have been other verdicts that contradict anything remotely touching common sense in the IT department recently.

      This is what I think is the reason why investors even considered SCO stock. Yes, it was a risky paper, and at least many might have known. But they relied or believed (you might notice how often I use believe. Mostly because it has a bit of a religion) on assumptions based on recent events and developments. Not so much on reality or logic. Like I said, reality and logic had little to do with many judicial decisions in the IT biz lately.
    • No doubt some shareholders thought SCO might have a genuine case. Many more thought that IBM would pay or buy SCO just to get them out of way. Even more though that they might be able to buy their stock low and sell them to scavengers after the next SCO announcement/stock pump. For a lot of people it was a gamble: perhaps there was a perceived 20% chance of a payout/settlement with the chance of a better than 5:1 payback.
  • by Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:33PM (#20217157)
    If a naked Morgan Webb giving away free Wii systems, then we'll know our time has come.
  • 95% (Score:5, Informative)

    by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@D ... com minus painte> on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:34PM (#20217167) Journal

    " looks like the end is near for SCO, which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun through the SCOsource program."

    Actually, the deal was that SCO remits 100% to Novell, then Novell pays them a 5% commission. Kimball ruled that SCO broke their fiduciary duty to Novell; SCO is no longer able to claim the 5% commission.

    The only question left is how much of the Sun and Microsoft licenses were for Novell's stuff?

  • by surfingmarmot (858550) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:34PM (#20217173)
    Fake Steve Jobs scooped it: he claims SCO has filed a new lawsuit--it's suing itself and its executives for incompetence in bringing about and losing the UNIX lawsuits. He's kidding, but I'll bet they thought about it a least for a minute or two ;-)
  • and make a fortune selling them as scrap paper.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Reverend528 (585549)
      If you frame the stock certificates, you could probably sell them to linux geeks at far above their market value. A company did this with enron certificates a few years ago.
  • by skroz (7870)
    As Eric Cartman might say...

    "You just got F'ed in the A."
  • Just the perfect little news tidbit before bedtime.

    ^_^
  • by Starteck81 (917280) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:39PM (#20217225)
    It really makes you wonder just how dumb some people are. Who throws money at a company making outrageous claims like that with out doing some homework to see if they even have a shred of proof to stand on?

    I would be really interested to see how many people, besides people that work for SCO, invested more that $10,000 in their stock. If you're dumb enough to invest in SCO how did you make money in the first place?
    • Mutual funds. Pensions. Your parents and grandparents retirement funds. And of course, Microsoft.
    • Once I saw that MS was throwing money in, I figured that it was a bit of a scam. Finding out later that Sun was also investing in them, was a true indication that it was a scam. But it also shows that the stock was going to go up (which it did). Had you invested in them when there were at 2, you would have turned 10K into 100K.
    • by Sangui5 (12317) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:45PM (#20218077)
      See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX [yahoo.com] for a list of major holders.

      Mostly, it looks like large investment institutions hold the bulk of SCO shares. Probably these are part of "total market" indexes and mutual funds. Since SCOX is still listed, they would still be a component of such funds.

      The best I can tell, the insiders are mostly gone. The largest holder of SCO seems to be Glenn J Krevlin. There are some articles out there linking him to some other bad smelling companies; the phrase "smoke & mirrors" seems common. SCO sounds right up his ally.
      • by bhalter80 (916317) on Monday August 13, 2007 @08:49PM (#20219533)
        They're still not done this was filed today:

        Form 8-K for SCO GROUP INC

        13-Aug-2007

        Other Events

        Item 8.01. Other Events.
        The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO", or the "Company"), offered the following statement in response to the August 10, 2007 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball regarding the Company's longstanding dispute with Novell over ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights:
        "We are clearly disappointed by the Court's adverse ruling regarding ownership of copyrights covering the UNIX operating system. Although the district judge ruled in Novell's favor on many important issues, the case has not yet been fully vetted by the legal system and we will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here.
        We note that the court ruled that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development of all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare 7.1.4 and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. We also own the exclusive, worldwide license to use the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. Also, SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms was not challenged and remains intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small, and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace.
        Moreover, the court did not dismiss our claims against Novell regarding the non-compete provisions of the 1995 Technology License Agreement relating to Novell's distribution of Linux to the extent implicated by the technology developed by SCO after 1995. Those issues remain to be litigated." Forward-Looking Statements:
        The statements contained in this press release, including but not limited to statements regarding the Company's pending litigation and expectations concerning the Company's developing mobile business OpenServer and Mobile Server platforms and other statements that are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements and are made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. We wish to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, developments in the Company's litigation with Novell and IBM, continued competitive pressure on the Company's operating system products, which could impact the Company's results of operations, adverse developments in and increased or unforeseen legal costs related to the Company's litigation, the inability to devote sufficient resources to the development and marketing of the Company's products, including the Me Inc. mobile services and development platform, and the possibility that companies with whom the Company has formed partnerships will decide to terminate, or reduce the resources devoted to, their partnership with the Company. These and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated are discussed in more detail in the Company's periodic and current filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 and Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2007. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events or circumstances arising after such date.

        Basically saying don't leave yet we do own stuff that has value see we can even name it
  • From $1.50 to $0.44 a Share. Day 1 With Stock Below $1 119 days to go.
  • by mytrip (940886) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:41PM (#20217253) Homepage Journal
    I think this whole thing was

    A) Pump and Dump SCO stock
    B) A Microsoft Trial Balloon


    The pump and dump worked pretty well. A bunch of SCO execs sold stock and made money at the expense of the future of the company Microsoft funded part of this lawsuit to harass linux users and see what would happen if they started suing linux users and distros as well.

    You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.
    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:10PM (#20217619) Homepage
      You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.

      No, they won't tell, and they most likely never will unless they get in a SCO-like situation where their actual revenue stream is drying up fast and it's either sue-and-pray or just die quietly.

      I believe this is the primary lesson MS learned from their SCO experiment: The implication of IP infringement is much more effective at scaring people away from Linux than actually trying to prove it. As long as the infringement is a non-specific threat with only a hint of reality behind it, it works on the basic fear-centers of the brains of IT management. As soon as it becomes something real, like a lawsuit, then it instead it invites the managers to use the analytic portions of their brains. FUD and fact checking don't go together.

      The concept of FUD is really nothing new to Microsoft of course, but this was an actual test run of "can we scare more people away from Linux with an actual IP lawsuit instead of just claiming that it is unsafe?" and it turns out the answer is "no".
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kjella (173770)
        The concept of FUD is really nothing new to Microsoft of course, but this was an actual test run of "can we scare more people away from Linux with an actual IP lawsuit instead of just claiming that it is unsafe?" and it turns out the answer is "no".

        That assumes a Microsoft suit would be equally toothless. SCO had some ancient non-patented (or expired) Unix rights that had extensively been licensed away which bubbled away to some baseless copyright claims and a contract suit with IBM over rights they didn't
  • by Excelcia (906188) <kfitzner@excelcia.ca> on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:42PM (#20217279) Homepage Journal
    The text of the story is technically which says:

    SCO ...still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX royalties it collected from Microsoft and Sun
    However, it is a little misleading in that it has to be determined at trial what percentage of the Microsoft and Sun deals were for SVRX. All the trial judge said is that some amount of those deals is for SVRX. Because the judge determined that the deals weren't entirely SVRX, he couldn't determine any sort of dollar amount. It could be a trivial amount, it could be substantial.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:44PM (#20217295)
    Hey, maybe Novell accepts some stock from SCO as payment. I heard there's plenty going 'round now.
  • Buy at 50 cents? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spazmania (174582) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:45PM (#20217305) Homepage
    What I want to know is: who is still stupid enough to buy the stock at 50 cents? Haven't they figured out yet that the next step for SCO is bankruptcy liquidation in which the stockholders get -zilch-?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spazmania (174582)
      Nevermind; I figured it out. These are the folks who short-sold when the stock was $5. They figure they've made enough money and keeping the extra 50 cents isn't worth the odd possibility that something sends the stock north again. So, they're buying at 50 cents to cover the previous short and get out of the SCOX game entirely.
    • by Greyfox (87712) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:30PM (#20217867) Homepage Journal
      SCO shares are now cheaper than toilet paper and are softer and more absorbent. I plan to buy a couple hundred bucks worth just so I can finally put them to the use they so richly (no pun intended) deserve.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by xtracto (837672)
      Ha! you might not think this SCOX company stock is worthy, but coincidentally just today I got an email in my inbox from a friend with an attached image explaining me why this SCOX company has a lot of future, and how this opportunity of buying the stock so cheap is good.

      And besides, I do not care about spending some thousands, as I got this friend in Nigeria who is making the paperwork to give me millions of dollars after I gave him some of my bank details.
  • Glad to see the SCO stooge go down, but we still face the great enemy of freedom, Microsoft. Freedom is about choice, and Microsoft is *ALL* about eliminating any real choice.

    In one sense, I deny that it matters. Since I believe we are evolving towards more freedom, then the momentary ups and downs don't matter so much. Societies that have more freedom and democracy receive competitive advantages, and eventually they will prosper over the less free societies. However, it still saddens me greatly to observe
  • by slapout (93640)
    Never saw that one coming.
  • So Novell could make Linux into Unix?
    Novell has killed most the lawsuit with IBM.
    Novell has driven a stake into SCOs heart.
    I have to wonder how long it will be until Novell's deal with Microsoft is forgiven. Frankly to me it always seemed like it was just a way to get money out of Microsoft and it doesn't seem to have hurt Linux.
    So how long before the zealots get over it?

  • by SEE (7681) on Monday August 13, 2007 @05:52PM (#20217387) Homepage
    As of April 30, 2007, SCO had $19.847 million in total assets (which includes no intangibles), and $12.654 million in total liabilities, according to the Reuters data [reuters.com]

    The ruling on the Microsoft/Sun royalties owed to Novell adds roughly $25 million to the liabilities, making SCO worth roughly -18 million dollars, book value.
    • by gvc (167165)
      It has to be determined what fraction of the Sun/Microsoft licenses are SVRX, and that will affect the judgement. Also, there may well be punitive damages and rather large costs. And don't forget that Novell's slander of title suit is going to trial as well.
  • I mean, it's not like they're doing anything. I'm wondering if it is just a bunch of lawyers and vultures sitting around in veal fattening pens collecting pay checks.

    Certainly, they all know they're now in a major death spiral. All they can do is slowly lay off people as more and more of it sinks below the waters into the briny deep of history.

    RS

  • translation (Score:4, Funny)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:06PM (#20217573)
    "[W]e will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said"

    We are fucked, and are desperating trying to think of something to save our selfs.

  • I mean, the stocks? I mean, if it's not too expensive, I'll just go and grab the whole junk, just to flip Darl and tell him to clean his office by 5pm.

    Not to mention that it might be quite nice on the CV to list "CEO of SCO". Though, whether "last CEO of SCO" is such a good thing... Well, in IT, when you get a recruiter who knows a bit about IT, he might love you for turning the lights off.
  • by BigBadBus (653823) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:20PM (#20217723) Homepage
    First of all, we have probably years of the obligatory appeals to wade through. It ain't over yet! Secondly, how long do you think it will be before SCO shares become the subject of pump-and-dump spam emails?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:23PM (#20217767)
    AllParadox is a retired lawyer who has been following the SCO cases and commenting; first on Groklaw, and more recently on InvestorVillage. He is actually an expert both on the law and on the SCO cases in particular. Here are exerpts from a few of his posts since Judge K's decision came down:

    IMHO, the probability of these fools filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is reasonably high. I put it around 99.999%, give or take.

    The forms are already prepared, they just need to be signed and filed. No, I am not an insider, and I am not privy to inside information. I even have trouble getting outside information. But the forms still have been prepared.

    Filing will be soon. Probably next week, if not, then in the week after.

    Furthermore, the chances of that being rapidly turned into a chapter 7 is also fairly high, around 99.9%.


     

    One more option for "Andrea's Husband":

    Sing. Sing like a little birdie. Sing long and loud. Bury IBM in the letters and emails and notes and appointment books and recorded telephone conversations and everything else that will prove beyond all doubt that this whole sordid mess was orchestrated and funded by Microsoft to inhibit Linux and interfere with IBM business practices.

    That will, by the way, save Darl's money. If he proves that the money from Microsoft was only nominally a payment for a UnixSysV license, when in fact it was a bribe paid to SCOX for SCOX to sue IBM, then there is a plausible argument that Novell should not receive these funds as monies held by a fiduciary.

    In my experience, it has a very good prospect of even keeping him out of jail, because the world will be distracted by the main event: IBM v. Bill Gates & Co. Then, a trite line from an old, old, movie will be apropos: "Feeling Lucky, Punk?"


     

    Still, it is possible. There have been criminal cases where the criminal defense attorney was paid with money that could be traced back to drug deals, but only after the fact. The Government went back to the attorneys and extracted back their fees.


     

    Conversion. It means the money in their hands actually belongs to someone else.

    It means that whatever amount is eventually decided to belong to Novell may be recovered.

    It may even be recovered from those people paid with it, if they were reasonably aware of the nature of the conversion.

    I will shout here:

    THIS IS NOT DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY. IF NOVELL ASKS FOR IT, DARL HAS TO GIVE BACK HIS PAYCHECKS. HIM AND YARRO BOTH. Novell has the burden of proof in Darl's bankruptcy, so it is not automatic, but Darl is now a busted flush.


    Based on the misery that is in store for them personally, Darl, Yarro and the lawyers all have to figure out how to save their hides. They might be able to do that if they can point to any evidence that points at Microsoft. That would direct IBM's attention away from them and IBM might be grateful. Otherwise, they will probably lose all the ill-gotten gains they have accumulated so far.
  • Step functions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams (112247) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:27PM (#20217805) Journal
    I find it interesting that since the start of 2005, the SCO stock price has pretty much followed a series of step functions, the price being very stable between abrupt adjustments:
    Jan 2005 - June 2006: $4.50
    June 2006 - November 2006: $2.00
    November 2006 - May 2007: $1.00
    May 2007 - yesterday: $1.50
    Today: $0.45

    I don't remember what if anything happened in June 2006. November 2006 was when most of SCO's supposed evidence against IBM was thrown out because they hadn't been specific enough. The May 2007 rally is a mystery. Today's drop is obvious.

    Five year graph [yahoo.com]
    One year graph [yahoo.com]
    One week graph [yahoo.com]
  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:58PM (#20218239)
    Hot-St0ck in the c0mput3r Industry!! Current Profile The SCO group, Inc.'s (OTCBB: SCOX) Symbol: SCOX Current Price: $0.37 3 day Target: $0.70 2 week Target: $1.25 Watch this one trade starting Wednesday Morning and Especially all this week. A huge PR Campaign just started and the price is expected to rise quite nicely. Its only trading at .37 with big increases possible! Judge to rule on possession of huge part of UnIX market! * Act Fast and Early! *
  • by NormalVisual (565491) on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:14PM (#20218413)
    I don't believe any of this FUD about Novell owning Unix and SCO going down, and I won't until I hear about it directly from Laura DiDio. She's always right, isn't she?
  • by unity100 (970058) on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:26PM (#20218571) Homepage Journal

    'We will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here,' SCO said


    Ill save you the trouble - you will quit it
  • Sad in a way (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Natales (182136) on Monday August 13, 2007 @08:31PM (#20219341)
    Don't get me wrong, these guys deserve everything that they get for their cheesy actions in the last several years against Linux. However, now, looking at their demise, I can't stop thinking how did they get there, when they were once "the rebels" against "the establishment" back in the day.

    I started my career as a technical support engineer for SCO Xenix in the late 80s, back in the time where Larry Michaels was there. They had the vision and an excellent code base. I had customers running up to 16 Wyse terminals on a 286 system under Xenix running COBOL applications, and even more could be achieved with SCO UNIX on the 386...

    I know this is just a nostalgic thought and that the SCO I'm referring to has nothing to do with its current incarnation. I hope this can be used as a lesson for Canonical and other very successful ventures that can really become the next best thing: don't become arrogant and forget your values and where you came from. Companies change, but at the end of the day, it's all about the people and how you contribute to make your and our lives better.

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Working...