Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Software News Linux

Nasdaq to Delist SCO Sep 27 269

Posted by samzenpus
from the please-let-this-be-the-end dept.
symbolset writes "The Nasdaq Staff has decided to delist SCO at open of business on September 27, 2007 under their discretionary authority and as a result of SCO filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. SCO can get a hearing but "There can be no assurance that the panel will grant the Company's request for continued listing.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nasdaq to Delist SCO Sep 27

Comments Filter:
  • by drspliff (652992) <harry.roberts@NOSPAM.midnight-labs.org> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:23PM (#20676719)
    Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:35PM (#20676821)
      I started investing my $20,000 student loan instead of using it to get my MBA. Well, I bought about $7000 worth SCOX stock back when it was worth a little more than a dollar. Well, now I am very worried about what is going to happen to my investment. It is bad enough that it has depreciated more than five times what I paid. And to those wondering... I didn't buy the SCOX stock because I thought The SCO Group would win against IBM. And I use Linux a lot. I bought the SCO stock because I thought their UnixWare and Open Server offerings were valuable enough that in time the market would weigh them instead of voting. I really hope Darl can turn this around pretty fast. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by kcbanner (929309) *
        So why didn't you get the MBA instead of investing the loan?
      • I'm reminded of this quote:

        <kylev> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
        <kylev> hahahahaha
        <kylev> some girl just came onto our floor
        <kylev> and was yelling "sexual favors for anyone who does my sociology paper"
        <kylev> i just asked her what the paper was about
        <kylev> and she said the accomplishments and growth of feminism
        <`Neo> bahahahaha

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ultranova (717540)

          The quote is only funny if you think that prostitution - trading sexual favors for other favors - is inherently incompatible with feminism. I see little reason why it would be, unless one considers every prostitute a victim of oppression, which hardly seems to be the case here.

          Just because you're a feminist doesn't mean you need to be good at writing papers, or be willing to exert the time and energy to do so, nor does it mean that you need consider sexual favors degrading. It simply means that you want w

      • by Dunbal (464142)
        I really hope Darl can turn this around pretty fast.

              Hope turns men into fools. You should have cut and run a long time ago, and yet still you hang on. Hello, it's going to be DE-LISTED. So unless you want to try to sell your stock in the classifieds, I'd accept my losses and get out while I can. 10 cents on the dollar is better than zero.
        • by Splab (574204)
          Never understood the shorted thing, but if I had the money and was living in the US I would have gone for that option (well I at least understand that you are somewhat betting against them doing good, and SCO was a dead fish).
          • by Dunbal (464142) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:27AM (#20677503)
            Shorting is simply selling what you don't have. Stock certificates are just pieces of paper. And your broker probably has a huge inventory of stock in his portfolio. So when you "short" something you are basically telling your broker that you agree to sell a stock that you don't own. There's no problem with this, since there are rigid mechanisms in place (today) to avoid fraud.

            If you sell stock you don't own you HAVE to buy it back OR make good the monetary difference at some point in the future.

            So let's say you "short" 100 shares of SCO when it is at $10 a share (yeah right). Your broker deposits $1000 in your account and records your sale. He may or may not have to adjust his own share inventory at this point, but as far as you are concerned you just "made" $1000.

            Now if the price goes up, say to $15 per share, it would cost you $1500 to buy those 100 shares back. If you have plenty of money in your investment account your broker will just let it slide. But if you run out of credit (ie you don't have more than $1500), your broker will oblige you to buy back the stock, since he no longer has any assurance that you will be able to pay if the stock keeps going up. This is how you get screwed with short sales.

            On the other hand, if the stock goes DOWN, say to $5 a share, then you are laughing, because once you decide to "cash in" on your investment, you "buy back" the 100 shares you sold at the current price of $500 ($5 per share). That means you pay $500 out of your account. But remember that your broker has already put $1000 in your account from the short sale you made earlier. So you've earned the balance - $1000 you were given for "selling" the stock short, less $500 to "buy back" the stock and close your commitment with your broker leaves you a profit of $500.

            This is a bit off-topic but I felt like writing. Hopefully you understand "short" selling now. Just remember that ALL stocks tend to RISE in value over time (unless there's something REALLY wrong with the company/sector/economy). It's not easy to make money by selling short, but when you spot a stock that is ridiculously overvalued, well, what goes up must also come down at some point. Judging when to buy and when to sell is what makes the difference between people who lose on Wall St. and people who win. And remember, if it was easy, everyone would be rich.
            • by TheDugong (701481)
              "everyone would be rich."

              Surely the value of the $CURRENCY would fall and/or inflation would rise dramatically instead?
              • by Dunbal (464142)
                Surely the value of the $CURRENCY would fall and/or inflation would rise dramatically instead?

                That would be the "standard" way of thinking.

                IANAE (an economist), but not necessarily. Look at the dot-com bubble in 2001. Tech stocks were a SURE thing, anyone and everyone made oodles of money in stocks (at least, anyone who invested in tech), and instead of inflation we saw economic expansion - because people (corporations) invested their profits in - more tech! Only when the bubble popped the correction came w
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Opportunist (166417)
              You should maybe add that shorting stock usually requires someone who's willing to buy the stocks. Selling short (or rather, more to the point, buying a put option) requires someone who agrees to it.

              It's not as uncommon as it sounds, and it has more appliances than just a "bet on the future stock value". Companies do it to have a determined price to expect (this is especially true for puts/calls on foreign currencies) for a future business. Say, you need 20k USD in 2 months but want to be sure to get them f
            • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:38AM (#20679283) Homepage
              There are a couple of reasons why shorting SCOX was a bad, bad, idea. Obdislcaimer: this is not investment advice, I am not responsible if you blow your MBA fund (bwahhaahhhaa).

              First off there is the price. There is a rule that says that when you short a stock below $5 the margin you have to provide never falls below $5 a share. So to short 100,000 SCOX shares you would need $0.5 million in cash or $1 million in stock. With SCOX at $0.50 you would net a maximum of $50,0000 if you won. But if for whatever reason the markets thought SCO looked like winning the case and the stock spiked to $10 you would be down $1 million.

              The second reason to avoid shorting stocks as bad as SCO is that the short interest can keep the stock afloat all on its own. That is known as a short squeeze. I shorted a complete POS stock that was trading at $20. The company had no revenues and had recently done a SCO like idiot move. I bought to cover at $40, the stock hit $100 at the peak. All this despite the fact that they had no business. it took two years for the stock to drop to 50 cents, which is still overpriced.

              There are certainly times when a short makes sense. When the technical staf of Cybercash all posted to the IETF mailing lists that their email address would change later that day it was clear that the game was up (public knowledge means its not insider trading). I made $20K on that short which partly covers the $50K I lost on the other.

              The usual reason for using a short is to balance out a portfolio, insuring against a drop in the market. Obviously you want to pick a dog or a grossly overvalued stock since those will probably drop furthest and fastest. For example plenty of people recon that Google will remain king of the search engine space. So they put $100K on Google and short $25K on Yahoo. If search booms they make money on Google and loose some on Yahoo. If search crashes they cover part of their losses on Yahoo. Another reason for using shorts is to hedge an option strategy. From time to time it is possible to play arbitrage between the options market and the equity markets.

        • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:18AM (#20679159) Homepage
          Lets see, $7,000 out of $20,000. Thats a third of your capital on a penny stock. Thats not investing, thats gambling. If you had taken the time to look into the company you would know that the software assets are in hock to the lawyers. If you had been following the stock you would have got out when they lost the Novell case.

          $20K is peanuts as far as an investment stake is concerned. An MBA is worth upwards of $20K a year. You would have to turn the $20K to $400K to match. Not very likely.

          If you want an investment, there is nothing better than education. There is no stock that can turn $20K into a $20K annuity in two years.

          On the other hand the most likely story is that this is simply someone out to yank everyone's chain by constructing a sob story that gives everyone a good chuckle.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by thebear05 (916315)
        You put 35% of a 20,000 portfolio in a single stock ? if this were a result of options... but if you have a 20,000 portfolio you are poorly diversified and deserve what happens
    • by SimonInOz (579741)
      May I be the first to offer condolences to Darl McBride.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by nmb3000 (741169)
        May I be the first to offer condolences to Darl McBride.

        Except that I tagged the story 'poordarl' right after it was posted :P

        Of course I also tagged it 'poorsco' and 'makethempayforwhattheyvedone'. What can I say, I try to be descriptive :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by texaport (600120)
      And be sure to drive a stake through the heart
      just in case.
      • You know we should probably consider nukes...maybe even launch them into orbit them drop them from there...one would imagine that it's the only way to be sure with these sorts of things...
    • by jamesh (87723)

      Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)

      Might I suggest 's/bell "just in case"/hard-wearing dance floor/'. There will be a long queue...

      Actually by charging $2 admission for the chance to dance on SCO's grave, I'm sure we could put together some package to aquire the rights to whatever IP SCO claim to have, so that Darl can't just buy it at firesale prices and start all over again.
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Loconut1389 (455297) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:24PM (#20676731)
    I got dibs on sco.com!
    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mudshark (19714) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:43AM (#20677249)
      Interesting factoid: It's currently number 86 out of the 100 oldest .com domain names which remain in use today. Funny how the number 86 would prove portentous...from UNIX for x86 processors to being 86ed from the NASDAQ.
      • 8 is divisible by 2, and 6 is divisible by 3! 86 is related to 23! I should write a movie about it!
      • That's an interesting tidbit- where did you find the list of the oldest domains? I don't have a hosts.txt that's QUITE that old...
        • Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)

          by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:52AM (#20677615) Homepage Journal
          That's an interesting tidbit- where did you find the list of the oldest domains?

          Not sure about it's source, but here's one a lot of people reference: http://theforrester.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/the-100-oldest-domains-on-the-internet/ [wordpress.com]. Here's the list for the click-impaired:

          (Note that here SCO is listed at #88. Domains registered on the same day are presented in random order so SCO.COM may indeed be 86. Also, sorry for the stupid formatting, bloody lameness filter).

          1. 15-Mar-1985 SYMBOLICS.COM
          2. 24-Apr-1985 BBN.COM
          3. 24-May-1985 THINK.COM
          4. 11-Jul-1985 MCC.COM
          5. 30-Sep-1985 DEC.COM
          6. 07-Nov-1985 NORTHROP.COM
          7. 09-Jan-1986 XEROX.COM
          8. 17-Jan-1986 SRI.COM
          9. 03-Mar-1986 HP.COM
          10. 05-Mar-1986 BELLCORE.COM
          11. 19-Mar-1986 IBM.COM
          12. 19-Mar-1986 SUN.COM
          13. 25-Mar-1986 INTEL.COM
          14. 25-Mar-1986 TI.COM
          15. 25-Apr-1986 ATT.COM
          16. 08-May-1986 GMR.COM
          17. 08-May-1986 TEK.COM
          18. 10-Jul-1986 FMC.COM
          19. 10-Jul-1986 UB.COM
          20. 05-Aug-1986 BELL-ATL.COM
          21. 05-Aug-1986 GE.COM
          22. 05-Aug-1986 GREBYN.COM
          23. 05-Aug-1986 ISC.COM
          24. 05-Aug-1986 NSC.COM
          25. 05-Aug-1986 STARGATE.COM
          26. 02-Sep-1986 BOEING.COM
          27. 18-Sep-1986 ITCORP.COM
          28. 29-Sep-1986 SIEMENS.COM
          29. 18-Oct-1986 PYRAMID.COM
          30. 27-Oct-1986 ALPHACDC.COM
          31. 27-Oct-1986 BDM.COM
          32. 27-Oct-1986 FLUKE.COM
          33. 27-Oct-1986 INMET.COM
          34. 27-Oct-1986 KESMAI.COM
          35. 7-Oct-1986 MENTOR.COM
          36. 7-Oct-1986 NEC.COM
          37. 27-Oct-1986 RAY.COM
          38. 27-Oct-1986 ROSEMOUNT.COM
          39. 27-Oct-1986 VORTEX.COM
          40. 05-Nov-1986 ALCOA.COM
          41. 05-Nov-1986 GTE.COM
          42. 17-Nov-1986 ADOBE.COM
          43. 17-Nov-1986 AMD.COM
          44. 17-Nov-1986 DAS.COM
          45. 17-Nov-1986 DATA-IO.COM
          46. 17-Nov-1986 OCTOPUS.COM
          47. 17-Nov-1986 PORTAL.COM
          48. 17-Nov-1986 TELTONE.COM
          49. 11-Dec-1986 3COM.COM
          50. 11-Dec-1986 AMDAHL.COM
          51. 11-Dec-1986 CCUR.COM
          52. 11-Dec-1986 CI.COM
          53. 11-Dec-1986 CONVERGENT.COM
          54. 11-Dec-1986 DG.COM
          55. 11-Dec-1986 PEREGRINE.COM
          56. 11-Dec-1986 QUAD.COM
          57. 11-Dec-1986 SQ.COM
          58. 11-Dec-1986 TANDY.COM
          59. 11-Dec-1986 TTI.COM
          60. 11-Dec-1986 UNISYS.COM
          61. 19-Jan-1987 CGI.COM
          62. 19-Jan-1987 CTS.COM
          63. 19-Jan-1987 SPDCC.COM
          64. 19-Feb-1987 APPLE.COM
          65. 04-Mar-1987 NMA.COM
          66. 04-Mar-1987 PRIME.COM
          67. 04-Apr-1987 PHILIPS.COM
          68. 23-Apr-1987 DATACUBE.COM
          69. 23-Apr-1987 KAI.COM
          • by nmb3000 (741169)
            Also, sorry for the stupid formatting, bloody lameness filter

            Woah! I don't usually respond to myself (okay I do, that's beside the point) but it appears I've been able to bypass the lameness filter's "Your comment has too few characters per line" limitation. Neato :)
          • by ColaMan (37550)
            Ah, history.

            You're not a true geek unless you've visited at least ten of those sites in your normal web browsing.
          • Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)

            by Seahawk (70898) <tts@NOspAM.image.dk> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:25AM (#20678923)
            I am sure that the people that host symbolic.com are puzzled by the sudden increase in hits today! :)
      • by greg_barton (5551) *
        Thank god it's not number 23!
      • by deniable (76198)
        It's almost like the had Agent 86 running the joint, but even he had more brains. The board was meeting under the cone of silence.
  • What happens? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So what happens to those of us who short sold their stock?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You think you have problems? I put my entire 401K into SCO. Oh god, the humanity!!!
      • by compro01 (777531)
        i dunno, the way the stock looks right now, it looks like a prime opportunity for day traders, being as at this price, it is fluctuating in the double-digits, and it's gone up by about 25% today (from $0.16 to $0.20) and it was up a whole $0.08 (from $0.16 to $0.24) at the high point today, which was a gain of 50%. and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.
        • by pyite (140350)
          and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.

          Quick lesson. Risk is measured in basis points, or bps (pronounced "bips"), i.e. 1/100 of a percent. Risk is not measured in dollars, so the price magnitude of a security is no measure of its risk.

        • Re:What happens? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Dunbal (464142) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:37AM (#20677217)
          and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.

                I beg to differ: this doesn't make sense. Because if you're only going to buy 100 shares for say $20 then I agree the "risk" is minimal. After all, the most you can lose is $20. Wow big deal. However you'll have a hard time paying your $14 ($7 each way) commission on that.

                So if you're going to go in for a fair chunk of change - say $20k or so (around 100k shares), I wouldn't consider losing 50% ($10k) or even 5% ($1k) "minimal" risk. Yeah ok shorting the stuff makes sense, but if you get caught on the wrong side for some reason (like you said, it went up 50% somehow) it won't take very long for you to shit your pants.

                If you play with a stock from a company with non-existent fundamentals like SCO, don't complain if you get burned. You will probably get better odds on the roulette table at your nearest casino.
    • Re:What happens? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:36PM (#20676839)
      You go to pinksheets.com, buy the amount of stock back you shorted for pennies on the dollar, then surrender it back to your broker.
      • What happens if they go completely bankrupt and you can't get the stock anywhere anymore? I was kind of wondering the same thing with Iridium several years back when their stock was flying high and dropped to nothing after becoming bankrupt.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by _Sprocket_ (42527)

          What happens if they go completely bankrupt and you can't get the stock anywhere anymore?
          They might take Charmin in lieu of stock. Thankfully that stuff is always available. Of course, the company behind Charmin has a viable business model.
      • by pchan- (118053)
        Assuming, of course, you can find someone to buy the stock from you. And the stock doesn't go to zero.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by pchan- (118053)
          Assuming, of course, you can find someone to buy the stock from you

          Er, assuming you can find someone to buy from. I think there are more shorts than holders.
        • Re:What happens? (Score:4, Informative)

          by vux984 (928602) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:37AM (#20677539)
          Clearly you dont know what it means to short a stock.

          If he's shorted the stock, he needs to find someone willing to sell him stock, not willing to buy his stock. If it goes to zero that's the best possible case, as he gets to keep his money without having to return the stock at all.

          Shorting stock is essentially selling shares you don't have and so you owe them to someone else (e.g. your broker). You do this in the expectation that the price will go down, whereby you can cover your debt of shares by buying the shares at a lower price than you sold them for, profitting on the difference).

          It *sort* of works likes this:

          You have 0$

          You make a deal to 'borrow' 1000 shares valued at $1, which you'll have to return at some point. You immediately sell those shares for $1000, putting $1000 in your pocket. The shares have now been 'shorted'. You have $1000, you owe your broker 1000 shares.

          Two weeks later the price is 0.50 cents, you buy 1000 shares for $500.
          Now you have 1000 shares and $500, and you owe your broker 1000 shares.

          You return the 1000 shares.

          You now have $500 in your pocket, that you didn't have before, and no debt.

          Of course its more complex than this, there are transaction fees, interest charges, and if the stock goes up and your account crosses a particular threshold the broker can force you to buy the shares at the current higher market price to cover the shorted shores. (ie 'foreclose' on your loan).

          Shorting is inherently riskier than going long (buying and holding and selling) because when long the worst that can happen is the stock can go to zero and you lose it all, and the best that can happen is that the stock will increase many times over.

          With shorting you can lose your investment many times over as there is no limit to how high the stock goes, and at most can only gain 100% of the transaction value, should the stock become worthless.

          In the example above, if the stock were to spike to $5 and your broker called you, you'd have to pay $5000 to return the shares you borrowed, putting you deep in the whole.

          ----

          Anyhow the OP was wondering, where exectly he could buy those shares he owes, if it gets delisted. And via OTC pink slips is where the action will be.

          Being delisted doesn't mean SCO shares can't be traded, merely that they can't be traded on the exchange. Getting delisted tends to push the price even further down, because shares traded OTC are less liquid, therefore less desirable, therefore worth less. Of course, that's just more good news for the OP. :)

          Having your trading halted on the other hand, means just that. No trading.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Himring (646324)
      You get that sound effect: "wah, wah, wah, waaaaaah...."

    • Re:What happens? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mr_mischief (456295) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:00AM (#20677363) Journal
      What happens if I maintain a short position in a stock that is delisted and declares bankruptcy? [investopedia.com] says you have pure profit, basically.

      I'm guessing you know about covering dividends, one-time special payments, and the like to the long holder. Short selling is fraught with danger, but boy can't it be handy?
    • by Wavicle (181176)
      They go and buy scosource [sco.com] licenses to keep the boat afloat until they can buy shares to cover their position.
  • by tokki (604363) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:27PM (#20676761)
    a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services,

    So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?

  • I only wish (Score:3, Funny)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:27PM (#20676765) Homepage
    I could some how take credit for this, it seems like a positive achievement.
  • by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:27PM (#20676769) Homepage
    I'm guessing that Slashdot contributed a lot in making the right thing happen concerning SCO. Slashdot got the message out to everyone, over and over again, helping deprive SCO of profit from confused executives.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by shanen (462549)
      Right. Those "confused executives" just looked for 'insightful' mods on /. and they knew what to do. Riiiiight.

      Seriously, folks. No applause, no mod points, just throw money.

      As for SCO, I predict their SCOX stock prices will have be reported using infinitesimals before the 27th. I knew I studied all that math stuff for some reason.
      • by shanen (462549)
        Oh, yeah. As I noted in my first response to the first SCO bankruptcy article, I think they should have reduced the entire topic to a poll. That could have spanned the entire period without all the minor variations. Not quite dupes, but close enough for government work.
      • by sumdumass (711423)
        Actually, I think they did. Remember all the stories where Darl and other higher ups were selling off their shares why they could and everyone here was calling for SEC investigations?

        They must have seen this coming a long time ago just like it has been prophesied here many times.
    • by yani (50270)
      One wonders how many executives read Slashdot... or even how many people within talking distance in the company hierarchy for that matter.
    • Actually full marks go to PJ. Groklaw rocks!!
    • The parent comment was moderated "Troll", and several people have made disparaging comments.

      However, this is how I figure it, and I'm serious, not joking: Slashdot kept the SCO issues and Groklaw's analysis of them in front of the eyes of a lot of Slashdot readers who were executives or knew executives, and in the normal course of discussing computer issues, created a culture of understanding SCO as not trustworthy.

      As poor as the editing of Slashdot is sometimes, I don't know any better way to get computer-related news. If you know of a better way, please mention it.
  • A good start, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by russotto (537200) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:35PM (#20676823) Journal
    Someone, maybe Novell, needs to ask the Bankruptcy Court to deny SCO's filing for Chapter 11 on the grounds that there's no way they can re-organize into a viable operation, and therefore they need to be liquidated. Then the creditors can auction off the honor of kicking Darl out on his ass.

    • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:52PM (#20676951) Homepage Journal
      The conversion from chapter 11 (re-organization) to chapter 7 (liquidation) happens automatically if the company can't show how they can remain a going concern. Assuming Novell gets justice, this is a done deal.

      The judge in the SCO v. Novell case ruled that SCO retained money that legally belonged to Novell (the legal term is "conversion"). The amount has yet to be determined but chances are that it is greater than SCO's net worth ($30 million has been bandied about). Since this is money that SCO had no right to keep, Novell moves ahead of the creditor pack and SCO is toast. If you dig around on Groklaw, someone found the clause in the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA - the legal document that set up SCO as the bagman and overseer of Unix licenses) that states that money collected by SCO for Unix SVRX licenses belongs to Novell specifcally in case SCO declares bankruptcy.

      SCO is in the same position as a bank robber who tries to declare bankruptcy to avoid giving the bank back it's money. The bank robber may have other creditors but they have no claim on the money stolen from the bank since it's still the bank's money. SCO didn't rob a bank but they illegally converted money that belongs to Novell into their own which amounts to the same thing.

      I wonder if any of SCO's old trade show swag is at all interesting. Who knows, in fifty years it might be worth something on e-bay.

      Cheers,
      Dave
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @11:45PM (#20676903) Homepage Journal

    From their Form 8-K filing [yahoo.com]:

    Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers. On September 13, 2007, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company"), approved an increase in the base salary of Ryan E. Tibbitts. Mr. Tibbitts' base salary will be increased from $160,000 per year to $210,000 per year, effective as of September 3, 2007. In recognition of the significant contributions Mr. Tibbitts has made to the Company, the Board also approved a discretionary bonus of $50,000, net of taxes, to be paid to Mr. Tibbitts.

    Why yes, yes, this seems like a splendid time to start giving out raises.

    I'm pretty ignorant of finance and law, but is there any reason whatsoever for the stockholders not to sue the board into destitution at this point?

    • by j. andrew rogers (774820) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:20AM (#20677113)
      The "pay raise" is a bribe by the board for key executives to not jump ship. It is a common pattern when companies are in trouble to put golden handcuffs on key people to keep them around to see the trouble through to the end rather than leaving for better climes with fewer risks. If you think about it, it makes a certain amount of economic sense.
    • Common in Bankruptcy (Score:3, Informative)

      by raftpeople (844215)
      It's common in bankruptcy to pay people extra to stay (those that will/could have a material impact on the finances of the company). The company I was at recently paid stay bonuses and a couple people saved the company far more money than they were paid to stay due to information they had on open issues.
    • by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr&ticam,utexas,edu> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:10AM (#20677421) Homepage
      I'm pretty ignorant of finance and law, but is there any reason whatsoever for the stockholders not to sue the board into destitution at this point?

      You may think you're ignorant, but you're obviously head and shoulders above the people whose reasoning you're questioning. For all we know, the smartest current SCO stockholders might already have tried to call lawyers and file lawsuits, only to find themselves unable to figure out how to work the telephone.
    • by Animats (122034) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:31AM (#20677795) Homepage

      Last minute payments to an insider just before filing bankruptcy? That's disastrous for SCO. This is waving a red flag in front of the bankruptcy judge. This screams "attempted asset stripping".

      It won't work, either. The bankruptcy trustee can retroactively undo that payment. The trustee can go back into the past 90 days for any transaction and undo it, or back a full year for anything involving an insider. Special payments to insiders during a bankruptcy need explicit permission from the bankruptcy court. And saying "we did it before the bankruptcy" won't help. The law (11 U.S.C. 547) is that "the debtor is presumed to have been insolvent on and during the 90 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition."

      The side effects of this will be severe. Remember, SCO management is currently only a "debtor in possession", and can do only whatever the bankruptcy trustee and the court specifically let them do. As soon as the judge gets word of this, SCO's management will have their chain yanked. SCO management will be much more closely supervised and have much less discretionary authority than they expected.

      SCO management was apparently thinking they could go into chapter 11 quietly and cut Novell out of the loop. They didn't even list Novell as a creditor in their initial filing. That plan stopped flying when Novell sent five bankruptcy attorneys from Morrison and Foerster to Delaware for the first-day bankruptcy hearing.

      Novell's request for a "constructive trust" for the unpaid royalty payments just got a huge boost. Now they'll probably get it. Which drains out most of SCO's cash.

  • Buy low, sell high.

    Will I buy it? Absolutely.


    Not. (ok technically, that's about three things to say)
    • In the case of SCO, it is more like "buy low, get pissed-off and sell lower," or maybe "buy low, get pissed-off when the company moves from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, liquidates all of its assets, and ceases all operations."
  • Soon, we will be getting spam pumping SCOX.pk.

    The question is, will the the SCO management be the ones sending out the spam?
  • Snowed By SCO (Score:5, Informative)

    by truckaxle (883149) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:11AM (#20677045) Homepage
    From this article

    http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html [forbes.com]

    Daniel Lyons has some choice quotes

    "I reported what they said. Turns out I was getting played. They never produced a smoking gun."

    and

    "It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right."

    Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.
    • by KWTm (808824) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:33AM (#20677527) Journal

      Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.

      I'm not impressed. Anyone can say, "Oh. Er, oops." It's easy to couch it in terms that *sound* like you're really humble, like "I was really REALLY wrong." Big deal.

      He makes it sound like it just so happened that the geeks were right and he was wrong. "Turns out those amateur sleuths were right." He refers to arguably one of the largest communities of people who do this for a living plus interested and competent hobbyists as though he were saying, "Oh, look! Those little kids turned out to be right after all."

      He does not see *why* we saw that SCO had no leg to stand on. He does not realize how, next time, he can do better than the flip of a coin. He says, "... the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose," and doesn't realize the painstaking review and due diligence that went on there that would put wikipedia to shame.

      He says:

      SCO is road kill. Its lawsuit long ago ceased to represent any threat to Linux. That operating system has become far too successful to be dislodged.

      Er, so SCO failed because Linux was too successful?

      No, Mr. Lyons. SCO failed because SCO was wrong , and if they had won, they still would have been wrong except there would have been a miscarriage of justice. It's not because someone threw the dice wrong or that the "pack" known as Slashdot or Groklaw happened to have a good day. It's not because you've been getting too much email pointing out that you were misinformed, Mr. Lyons, or ignorant.

      You don't fool me. Your basic thinking shows through in your words, even though those words sound nice on the surface. Kinda like the press releases of this other company I know that turned out to be wrong.

      -----
      (By the way, I expect Laura Didio and Enderle to write something like, "Well, darnit, looks like Novell owns the rights to Unix, not SCO. So we'll just wait for Novell to sue Linux for blatant copying of Unix source into Linux.")
      • by khallow (566160)

        I'm not impressed. Anyone can say, "Oh. Er, oops." It's easy to couch it in terms that *sound* like you're really humble, like "I was really REALLY wrong." Big deal.

        Compare this to the usual approach, which is to pretend the errors never occured or even to never know that they were wrong. You decide whether or not you want to reward behavior that's much better than average for journalism, but IMHO an extensive apology, even an error-ridden apology as this one was, still merits some approval on our part.

      • by lendude (620139) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:41AM (#20678379)
        Excellent post. Lyons needs to be sent a laminated copy of this to hang on his toilet wall as a reminder of his shoddy work.

        I've had a couple of short email conversations with Dan (not of any consequence, just something along the lines of resisting the urge to be a mouthpiece for SCO) and in his one reply he exhibited the same hubris as he does in this excuse for an apology.

        See, it wasn't really him: SCO snowed him, he gave them the benefit of the doubt, and after all what's a journalist who follows a case for 4 years meant to do except take them at their word - continually. God forbid that he should pay any attention to a bunch of 'nerds' who happened to luck out - who woulda thunk it?.

        And see, he is only publishing his 'mea culpa' out of his own supreme sense of integrity - "Online publications don't typically ask for follow-throughs. But I need to write one." - wow, what a guy! And don't forget, "Over time my SCO articles began to carry headlines like, "Dumb and Dumber," "Bumbling Bully" and "SCO gets TKO'd.". See, I really was doing my due diligence and actively seeking fact, wading through SCO's bullshit! He wasn't falling for SCO's brand of the truth!

        And anyway, those nasty nerdy types in "that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true. I've told these folks it's not true. Hasn't stopped them". Poor Dan is non-plussed by such callousness! How can we not but believe all Dan tells us?

        Sorry Dan, that is the piss-poorest excuse for a mea culpa in recorded history - more about denying culpability, and attempting to shore up a position which was pretty much a dogshit-coated candy from day one. Grow some fucking balls and just give us the plain fact: you were wrong because you didn't do your job to any standard worthy of someone who proclaims themselves a 'journalist'.

    • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:50AM (#20677611) Journal
      The problem was less that he was wrong, and more that he just reported what SCO said without being skeptical or attempting to suss out how full of shit they were. And from day one, there were plenty of indications that SCO had nothing.

      A reporter's job isn't to be a stenographer for whatever anyone wants to say. We have press releases for that.
      Reporters are supposed to get stories, sort out the various facts, and if someone's feeding them bullshit, point that out. The tendency for reporters today to be "balanced" in reporting on an issue really just means that people with nothing to back up what they say are put on even footing with people who have facts to back up their claims.

      Let's hope Lyons learned that he actually has to do some, you know, reporting, as part of his job.
    • It reads more like this to me:

      And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
  • It is to laugh (Score:4, Informative)

    by davmoo (63521) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:16AM (#20677083)
    From SCO's press release: a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services

    I have to laugh every time I see this line in their press releases. Even before their ill-advised journey in to the legal system, and back in their prime and heyday and earlier incarnations, SCO was never the leading provider of a damned thing.

    What would make this story complete would be if SCO's remaining share holders were to file suit against its officers and directors.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get ready to listen to the Fat Lady sing :-)
  • Do these Clowns even have anymore customers after what they've pulled? Who the hell would even stick with their products with all of this fiasco going on? If they do have any, then perhaps we of the Tech Field should point them to a much better solution for their needs, eh?
  • by Chris Tucker (302549) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:33AM (#20677207) Homepage
    ...turn out the lights.

    Oh, and grab me one of them Aeron chairs while you're at it.

    Thanks!
  • sampsenpuz said this story was from the please-let-this-be-the-end dept, but it should more aptly be filed under shutup-sco-and-die-already dept.

    But that's just my particular filing method.
  • by RWarrior(fobw) (448405) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:15AM (#20677709)
    Big news expected.*This stock will implode!*
    Do not wait until it is too late!!!
    LOOK AND WATCH SCOX THIS MONDAY

    New news expected next week.
    Expected 7 day price -$1.10
    Last time they put out major news the stock ran like shit down a toddler's leg!

    (SYMBOL: SCOX)
    Price: $ .20
    Short Term Target: 300-500% Loss

    *******PRESS RELEASE******
    **SCOX****SCOX****SCOX**** =
    A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar trip around the toilet bowl in just one trade if you trade out before you hit the water trap. SCOX should be one of the most exciting stocks to trade for Sept, if you like roller coasters that only go down! In this range the stock has potential to move in the nether direction in big concrete shoes!!!! This means you should be able to buy at the lows and sell even lower, if you can get the fuck out of the way of this oncoming train fast enough! Did we tell you you've been tied to the track!!!!!!!!!!

    If the company is able to effectuate it's business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY IN THE MAKING. Uproariously funny and documented all over the web for everyone to see!!!!

    GOOD LUCK AND TRADE OUT BEFORE YOU HIT THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY!
  • Poll Idea: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kaenneth (82978) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @03:01AM (#20677951) Homepage Journal
    You are given the honor of choosing one of these 3 OS's to be deployed at your company:

    1) SCO Unix
    2) Windows Vista
    3) CP/M

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.

Working...