Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Businesses The Almighty Buck IT

SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice 116

SCO Delenda Est writes "The SEC has given SCO notice that they will be delisted from the NASDAQ if they cannot keep their share price above $1 sometime in the next 180 days. Although they may be able to avoid delisting for a while, their small market capitalization will hinder their efforts. Given their other financials, this just goes to show how desperate their current financial situation is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice

Comments Filter:
  • by qbwiz ( 87077 ) * <john@baumanfamily.c3.1415926om minus pi> on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:04AM (#18909833) Homepage
    The bad part of this plan is that part where we increase the stock price, thus giving Darl money.
  • by Arker ( 91948 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:04AM (#18909837) Homepage
    That simply isn't an option. Novelle and IBM both have lots of counterclaims that will have to be dealt with, even if Caldera does drop their baseless claims. And lawyers aren't allowed to just back out of a case. Plus BS&F have already been paid to take this thing to the conclusion...
  • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:16AM (#18909877)
    Darl's business strategy was very successful for some, if not for SCO:

    Pump and dump: The "we're going to screw over IBM" hype lured in the vultures and pumped up SCO stocks. Those that then dumped stocks probably got 10x the true value for their stocks.

    Milking the cow: Darl's brother Kevin is part of the SCO legal team. Keeping SCO and the conflict alive and spending big on lawyers fees got a lot of money into Darl's brother's pockets. Families help eachother out.

    Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company that got trashed by poor management and greed.

  • Re:$1 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 28, 2007 @05:30AM (#18910267)
    Below $1 shares become increasingly volatile since a minimal movement in price - 1 cent - becomes more than 1 percent of the stock value. If you think about all those stock scams where you get emailed begging you to buy such-and-such in the hope that a few mugs doing it will knock the price a few percent and make someone a fortune, well that's exactly the sort of thing that Nasdaq don't want on their market. Some people would say that pretty much the same thing happened with SCO in the over $1 range but if anything that just highlights how volatile a stock can be, and why Nasdaq have rules to minimise it.
  • Re:What? Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weedlekin ( 836313 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @07:37AM (#18910703)
    "Microsoft doesn't necessarily want SCO to *win*. They want SCO weak to prevent any good products coming from that particular UNIX vendor, and to continue the demonstrably false rumors that Linux developers steal from UNIX."

    SCO was far too weak to be any threat to Microsoft long before this case started, and any FUD value it might once have had is now gone due to the fact that it's dragged on for so long, and has turned out to be so full of obvious crap from SCO and their lawyers that most geeks have lost interest in it, let alone everybody else. Microsoft's FUD-generation funds are thus now being spent on injecting money into commercial Linux vendors like Novell so they can make a noise about the possibility of Linux infringing on _their_ IP, which they have such vast quantities of that, unlike SCO's laughable (to geeks) claims, isn't easy for even the most diligent open source developers to discount because of the loose and wide-ranging nature of software patents.

    From Microsoft's POV therefore, SCO has already served its purpose, and there's no reason for them to waste money propping up a case that even known shills like Laura Didio seem to have given up on, especially when that same money could be spent far more productively on their current "Linux probably infringes several of our patents" FUD campaign.
  • Re:A bad precedent (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 28, 2007 @11:00AM (#18911707)
    That's why IBM won't buy them out... they will not only beat SCO, but using counter-claims, grind them into the dust as an example of "this is what happens when you sue IBM".
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @02:47PM (#18913163)
    Where's the problem? You buy out SCO, drop the case against IBM and declare all *nix code you own OSS, IBM comes after the company for damages, company goes poof since there's no assets left and IBM goes after management and board for money.

    Bottom line, you give IBM a headache and drive Darl and his pals into bankrupcy. Win-Win.

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...