Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:54 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware The Nasdaq market has delisted The SCO Group, the Linux-seller-turned-Linux-litigant now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company's shares were taken off the Nasdaq because of the bankruptcy proceedings, the company said Thursday in a statement. The company had appealed Nasdaq's decision to do so but lost its appeal on December 21, the company said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Thread beginning with comment 293758
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: SCOX
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Dec 2007 11:18 UTC in reply to "SCOX"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

SCO as a Unix vendor was doomed even without their litigation spree against Linux. Proprietary Unix is quickly losing relevance to it's open source cousins and Windows.


I disagree. Now, it is a lost cause. 6 years ago, had they done something, sure, they wouldn't be big and profitable like Microsoft, but they would at least have a viable product. Look at the cost of their current product line up; they charge for the base system, then they charge for components which come standard in their competitors operating systems.

I think it was over 3-4 years ago I said that SCO could have turned around, for a flat rate of a one off fee of $999 + 50 free support calls, or $699 per year and unlimited calls per year - they could have easily priced their product within what one would consider reasonable.

The problem is, they were stuck in the 1980s. Whilst Microsoft was launching an operating system which undercut in price, delivered a boot load of features within a single package - SCO continued pricing themselves out of the market. Linux provided the final nail in the coffin in the form of an operating system UNIX like enough to allow easy migration from SCO UNIX product line to Linux.

Can they make a viable business model? nope. They had the opportunity over 4-5 years ago. Solaris is now opensourced, Linux is mature and stable, *BSD is going through a rebirth, and customers are expecting more from their software vendor than simply being a provider of operating systems - hence the reason why Red Hat, Sun, and the likes are investing heavily in improving their middleware line up.

What do they do now? close up shop, sell of what ever assets remain, and any remaining share holders sue management for running the company into the ground - failing to take advantage of competitors mistakes when they occurred - but hey, what else do you expect when you promote people to managerial positions based on qualification rather than what they can actually accomplish.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: SCOX
by lemur2 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 11:56 in reply to "RE: SCOX"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

close up shop, sell of what ever assets remain, and any remaining share holders sue management for running the company into the ground


Before ordinary shareholders get to have a go at any SCOG funds remaining, SCOG already have a judgement aginst them that of the license money that SCOsource raised from Microsoft, Sun, EV1 and others, up to 95% of that money actually belongs to Novell. It isn't SCOG's money at all. There is to be a trial soon to determine the exact percentage of that Novell money that SCOG are illegally holding.

After that ... when you sue anybody, those parties have a "free shot" at suing you back. Virtually all of the claims that SCOG have made against Autozone, Daimler-Chrysler, IBM and Novell have failed in court (because SCOG essentially have no IP rights in UNIX). OTOH, none of the counterclaims by Novell, IBM, Autozone or Daimler-Chrysler have gone away, nor has the Lanham act claim by RedHat against SCOG. All of those claims against SCOG would be pretty much a slam dunk.

AFAIK, all of those issues have to be resolved, if not by SCOG then by the bankruptcy court, before any payments to shareholders can even begin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

SCOG have applied for "Chapter 11" - reorganisation.

It is however most likely IMO to end up as "Chapter 7" - liquidation.

I don't know the exact order in which creditors & others get paid out, but from what I can gather the shareholders would be at the end of a long, long line.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: SCOX
by walterbyrd on Sun 30th Dec 2007 13:29 in reply to "RE: SCOX"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

Scog has never been profitable. Not one day in their entire existence. Even when msft gave scog all those millions, not was really profitable because all that money belonged to Novell.

Their may have money to make in proprietary UNIX. But scog was never the company to make that money.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: SCOX
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Dec 2007 15:04 in reply to "RE[2]: SCOX"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Scog has never been profitable. Not one day in their entire existence. Even when msft gave scog all those millions, not was really profitable because all that money belonged to Novell.

Their may have money to make in proprietary UNIX. But scog was never the company to make that money.


I am talking about way back when SCO was Santa Cruz Operations; everything went down hill the moment they failed to step up and provide a competitive product to Windows 2000 - as mentioned in the previous post. The buy out by Caldera was their lifeline. That lifeline, itself, needed a lifeline.

Their lifeline started to question the logic of continuing to pump money into the Caldera given its years of losses - and no light at the end of the tunnel. Red Hat slipped into profitability, Caldera continued to lose money. A new CEO takes over and so the litigation games begin.

Like I said, the issues regarding SCO were before Caldera's purchase.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: SCOX
by gfx1 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:26 in reply to "RE: SCOX"
gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

I think it was over 3-4 years ago I said that SCO could have turned around, for a flat rate of a one off fee of $999 + 50 free support calls, or $699 per year and unlimited calls per year - they could have easily priced their product within what one would consider reasonable.

Do you really want to use a product where you can make a support call every week?
That's not good advertising, some trust in your own product.

Edited 2007-12-30 16:28

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: SCOX
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:58 in reply to "RE[2]: SCOX"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you really want to use a product where you can make a support call every week?
That's not good advertising, some trust in your own product.


What the hell are you going on abut? providing telephone support does mean 'teh product sucks' - it means that the company is standing behind their product, that they're so confident in their product quality, they'll provide you an insane amount of support which you'll most likely never need!

Dear god, learn some marketing skills before you post - I can smell your ignorance down my DSL line.

Reply Parent Score: 4