Nasdaq to Delist SCO Sep 27 269
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.""
Good bye and... (Score:5, Funny)
This is really bad news for me. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is really bad news for me. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is really bad news for me. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the value of the $CURRENCY would fall and/or inflation would rise dramatically instead?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:This is really bad news for me. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:This is really bad news for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
$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)
Re:This is really bad news for me. (Score:4, Funny)
Now I realize: casinos are chump change compared to Wall Street, where the real high-rollers go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too many people are suffering the quick return addiction:
- on investment, day-traders buy low and sell back quick high (sometimes)
- companies hire pre-trained people for low wages and work them raw for high profits (then dump them instead of training if the skills need change)
- Companies go to outsourcing their skills and talent because it looks good on the books now (but not good fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_selling [wikipedia.org]
http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp [investopedia.com]
Just for a couple examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except that I tagged the story 'poordarl' right after it was posted
Of course I also tagged it 'poorsco' and 'makethempayforwhattheyvedone'. What can I say, I try to be descriptive
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good bye and... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good bye and... (Score:4, Funny)
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow it really IS everywhere! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow it really IS everywhere! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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% ($1k) "minimal" risk. Yeah ok shorting the stuff makes sense, but if you get caught on the wrong side for some reason (like you said, it went up 50% somehow) it won't take very long for you to shit your pants.
If you play with a stock from a company with non-existent fundamentals like SCO, don't complain if you get burned. You will probably get better odds on the roulette table at your nearest casino.
Re:What happens? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What happens? (Score:4, Funny)
They have the same basic business model as the traders who shorted SCO stock - they all rely on other people being full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Er, assuming you can find someone to buy from. I think there are more shorts than holders.
Re:What happens? (Score:4, Informative)
If he's shorted the stock, he needs to find someone willing to sell him stock, not willing to buy his stock. If it goes to zero that's the best possible case, as he gets to keep his money without having to return the stock at all.
Shorting stock is essentially selling shares you don't have and so you owe them to someone else (e.g. your broker). You do this in the expectation that the price will go down, whereby you can cover your debt of shares by buying the shares at a lower price than you sold them for, profitting on the difference).
It *sort* of works likes this:
You have 0$
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the concept of shorting. [wikipedia.org]
Re:What happens? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technology" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo (Score:2)
So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?
Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo (Score:5, Funny)
That's a typo. It's supposed to be "a leaving provider..."
I only wish (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot contributed a lot. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They must have seen this coming a long time ago just like it has been prophesied here many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot kept us aware of SCO & Groklaw's anal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A good start, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A good start, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ($30 million has been bandied about). Since this is money that SCO had no right to keep, Novell moves ahead of the creditor pack and SCO is toast. If you dig around on Groklaw, someone found the clause in the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA - the legal document that set up SCO as the bagman and overseer of Unix licenses) that states that money collected by SCO for Unix SVRX licenses belongs to Novell specifcally in case SCO declares bankruptcy.
SCO is in the same position as a bank robber who tries to declare bankruptcy to avoid giving the bank back it's money. The bank robber may have other creditors but they have no claim on the money stolen from the bank since it's still the bank's money. SCO didn't rob a bank but they illegally converted money that belongs to Novell into their own which amounts to the same thing.
I wonder if any of SCO's old trade show swag is at all interesting. Who knows, in fifty years it might be worth something on e-bay.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like SCO tried bullying IBM?
Re:What about Micro$oft ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd worry more about MicroSoft's new pattent FUD campaign. They're using the same strategy as SCO but claiming pattents instead of copyrights (claim there's infringement but not say where or even which patents). S-I-G-H. On the plus side, M$ keeps getting zinged by patent trolls so maybe they'll start working against software patents. Big, rich companies have a lot more to lose and very little to gain.
Cheers,
Dave
BTW, IANAL so the above may be wrong but I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good time for raises, too! (Score:5, Informative)
From their Form 8-K filing [yahoo.com]:
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?
Re:Good time for raises, too! (Score:5, Informative)
Common in Bankruptcy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good time for raises, too! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
That is so going to backfire (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I have just one thing to say. (Score:2)
Will I buy it? Absolutely.
Not. (ok technically, that's about three things to say)
Re: (Score:2)
Soon SCOX.pk spam (Score:2)
The question is, will the the SCO management be the ones sending out the spam?
Snowed By SCO (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Unimpressed by his apology; he doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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.")
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Unimpressed by his apology; he doesn't get it (Score:4, Informative)
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'.
Yeah, but did he learn anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It is to laugh (Score:4, Informative)
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 They Even Have Any Customers?????? (Score:2, Insightful)
The last person out the door at SCO... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, and grab me one of them Aeron chairs while you're at it.
Thanks!
Filing dept. (Score:2)
But that's just my particular filing method.
Check this email! (Score:5, Funny)
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: $
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)
1) SCO Unix
2) Windows Vista
3) CP/M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, looking at the other guy (the one who bought your stock) and clicking your tongue while muttering "sucker" is valid at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have an absolute floor of how much paper scraps are worth in your area if you have paper stock. If it was electronic then you may ask your broker to print your copies and then sell them for scrap.
Re:Not as big a deal as it sounds (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt it. Salon.com didn't start suing people with bogus claims. I'm sure certain influential and VERY large corporations will see it as their duty that SCO won't rise again...
Re:New logo for SCO will be $<0 (Score:3, Funny)
The suggested new SCO logo is $<0, not HTML with a 0 tag.