SCO v. IBM

Message ID: 138748 Posted By: rgriffith64 Posted On: 2004-05-31 13:25:00 Subject: Tomorrow: day before earnings (red) Recs: 4 SCO has a 2nd quarter earnings call scheduled for 11pm EST on Wednesday June 2. http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=135593 For information on how to get in or listen to a web cast. Essentially there is 1 trading day before the call. In light of this, what should we see tomorrow. Lately the volume has been extremely light and there has been no discernable "paining" action pumping the price to unheard of levels. The current value of SCO is bobbing about the cash-on-hand value of the company. Negative earnings and outlook could drop this value. I doubt SCO will say anything but good things about the lawsuits, if they say anything at all. I expect flaming red earnings report: 1) continued cash (or equivalent) payments to lawyers (why not on commission??) 2) dropping legacy revenues 3) very little SCO source revenues ...

Message ID: 135964 Posted By: saltydogmn Posted On: 2004-05-20 16:09:00 Subject: Ledite - worthless piece of ?#%@ Recs: 2 I think I've had you plonked since the first day I logged in here, but for some un-Godly reason, I just tried to read one of your posts. Well, I can read just fine, but I'd need several hits of acid to come close to understanding your inane drivel. Wow, there's 60 seconds of my life I'll never get back. You are beyond help, you pathetic little clueless shill. You say the Linux / IBM / rule of law / honest posters are using spin and twist; what in God's green earth do you think Darl and company are doing? SCO has not provided one scintilla of evidence proving any of their hare-brained claims, nor will they be able to, ever! I know you're a troll, and I know I should just keep on ignoring you, but you're such a poor, idiotic, uninformed troll, that you really need to be, well, bitch-slapped is a good term for it. Consider ...

Message ID: 134051 Posted By: mck9@swbell.net Posted On: 2004-05-14 19:41:00 Subject: Leave Biff alone Recs: 26 Some members of this board have become preoccupied with the outing of backinfullforce, a.k.a. Biff. This preoccupation has gone beyond playfulness and smells of malice and vengefulness -- vices that are toxic, however much pleasure they may give in the indulgence. Much as I hate to side with Biff on anything, I urge that this quest to identify him be abandoned. I could argue that it is futile -- which it probably is, despite stats_for_all's prodigious skills at research. Even if Biff admitted to being (for example) Biff Traber, would you believe him? I could argue that it is pointless -- which it is. Will knowing who he is keep him from posting? Will it make his posts coherent? Will it protect newcomers from being misled by his rhetorical distortions? I don't think so either. Rather than use these arguments, however, I argue that outing ...

Message ID: 120680 Posted By: stats_for_all Posted On: 2004-04-06 12:00:00 Subject: McBride changes story Recs: 22 In 2003, McBride asserted that Linus Torvald never responded to his e-mail. "He says he sent an e-mail to Linus Torvalds, but Torvalds never responded. " I noticed the following statement when reading the CRN award to McBride at: /www.crn.com/sections/special/top25/top25_03.asp?ArticleID=45992 This is contracdicted by the April 1, 2004 McBride interview where Darl himself described the exchange. ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "stats_for_all" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 120616 Posted By: jcauseyfd Posted On: 2004-04-06 09:40:00 Subject: New ad blitz??? Recs: 0 Just thought this was interesting and maybe someone else will as well. In yesterday's mail I received a marketing piece from MS about their "Desktop Deployment and Resource Kit". It's a big, slick fold out piece targeted at my industry and extolling the virtues of selecting XP with Office 2003 for a desktop and office solution. As they note, there is "more than _one choice_" for these. Of course, it is full of all their marketing fluff, including not one, but two, obligatory quotes from Gartner about those evil costs of migration and training when switching. The most interesting thing about all this to me is that it was even sent out. I don't remember EVER getting anything trying to sell me on how great their desktop and office solutions are. Servers, Exchange, all that stuff, sure, but a big marketing piece about desktop/office...

Message ID: 120536 Posted By: ColonelZen Posted On: 2004-04-05 23:53:00 Subject: 10.50 Wild speculation Recs: 2 Let's try this. SCO itself, other than lining the exec's pockets , doesn't need the 10.50 as the redemption option is theirs. But the skull sweat of others here suggests that someone spent around 4M to push it up there. The only other interested party who would care about the 10.50 is BayStar so why would they? To keep SCO from executing an option they can't afford to execute. Which, (donning tinfoil hat with pink puffball at the crown) might suggest that they think SCO just *might* try a suicide play to extort more money out of them (I. e deliver the redemption note), which 5 days later allows them to declare bankruptcy. Which give rise to three more questions (clear indicator that we've gone beyond what the facts allow us to speculate on, but fun anyway) Why does BS care? Their money's gone anyway. Because it looks bad...

Message ID: 118304 Posted By: boyle_m_owl Posted On: 2004-03-30 23:52:00 Subject: Incorrigible. Recs: 1 The article speaks for itself. http://tinyurl.com/22fyd Darl, it's official. You're a prick. On another note, I went live 24/7 on my machine at home with cable broadband. From plugging in the hardware to turning on the machine, the technician that watched said that it was easier than installing on a Windows box. I wouldn't know. I don't do Windows. -- BMO ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "boyle_m_owl" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 115796 Posted By: phandsvrta Posted On: 2004-03-25 13:30:00 Subject: Re: ok, what does WAG mean? Recs: 12 Go to the page :- http://www.splattertime.com/scox/index.php ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "phandsvrta" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 115795 Posted By: choconutdancer Posted On: 2004-03-25 13:28:00 Subject: ok, what does WAG mean? Recs: 0 if I google for "WAG" and "stock" I get Walgreens stock hits. if I google just for "WAG" I get lots of stuff about dogs and a hit on a punk rock band. so, what does WAG mean? ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "choconutdancer" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 111100 Posted By: stats_for_all Posted On: 2004-03-16 13:39:00 Subject: Royce Tech under Water Recs: 29 I note from the Royce Technology Value Fund prospectus that their holdings in SCOX increased from 105 K to 430 K after June 30, 2003. As of 2/29/04, this fund still held the 430 K shares. This does not include the 1,600 K shares held on 12/31 as a Royce and Associates Institutional holdings. At least 325 K of the Royce Tech fund shares were purchased after June, and are now showing a loss. The overweight that Royce has in SCO is dragging this fund performance down. Jonathan Cohen, the analyst that touted SCO in August 2003 is the investment advisor to Royce. He may begin to dump these underperforming shares, which will increase the float and downward pressure on this stock. ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message ...