scox was not a bargin at $1.00 a share

Message ID: 78299
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-01-07 08:10:00
Subject: scox was not a bargin at $1.00 a share

A year ago, when scox was $1 a share, scox was a company that had never been profitable. Quite the opposite, scox had been gushing red ink since the day of it's bogus IPO. That IPO is still under investigation for fraud.

Furthermore, there was not any reason to think scox ever would be profitable. Scox's core product, UnixWare, was far inferior to Linux in performance and features, and far more expensive.

The only reason that scox ever had a profitable quarter was because of huge, one time, fud donations from msft and sunw. Even with those donations, scox had an unprofitable Q4.

Scox core business has decreased substantially since scox was $1.00. The scox phenominon was scam ochestrated by the insiders, for the insiders. If you want those sort of pofits, you have to be an insider, realistically there is no other way. So if you want want to increase your money 20X over in a few months in the stock market, start your own scam. There is really no other way.

Message ID: 84738
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-01-22 23:14:00
Subject: Price manipulation all along?

Of course the IPO was a scam. And, of course, there has been a lot of manipulation for the last several months.

But, I don't think the price was manipulated up, when the share price was under $2.

I don't think the recent price manipulation started until August. Remember the first time that novl questioned the copyright ownership? Scox dropped from $8 to $6 right away, that's a fairly normal share price movement.

After SCOforum was when really weird price movement started. After scox embarassed themselves with the code showing; scox went up 50% in the next three sessions - price has defied gravity ever since. I think was when DB stepped in.

Message ID: 85860
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-01-27 08:07:00
Subject: pop-media doesn't get it

I don't know if pop-media understands why so many people are pissed at scox.

Of course, scox is trying to spin it to look like linux users are just a bunch of napster thieves, who are crying about being forced to pay scox what is due to scox.

Some pop-media clowns think linux users are mad at ibm being sued. For the record: if anybody has grounds to sue ibm; they can sue ibm all they want, for what I care.

For a least a decade now, msft has been putting the brakes on technology in order for msft to preserve it's monopoly. God only knows how many innovative small businesses have been ruined by msft oppression. I've been sick of it for a while now. Msft can easily dismiss the DOJ with a few politcal "contributions."

Now this jackass in business suit, mcbride, is feverishly working to gut a promissing technology, because it helps him advance his penny-stock scam. Everybody knows what is going on, but the powers that be would rather turn a blind eye.

If nothing else, the scox-scam exposes glaring inadeqacies in our financial systems, legal system, our political system; and of course, our pop-media.

Message ID: 87443
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-01-30 10:40:00
Subject: no insider selling = no volume

and not much price movement.

That is how it looks to me. By insider, I mean anybody who is in on the scam: royce, canopy, etc.

Message ID: 91633
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-02-08 11:45:00
Subject: scox's not crazy, insane, or arrogant

It is generally assumed that a public company wants to continue it's existance and grow. Therefore, it is further assumed that a public company would not make public claims that are clearly irrational and/or untrue. Certainly it is a assumed that a public company would file merritless lawsuits, and then lie in a court of law.

But, scox's strategy is different. This is just a cash grab. All scox needs is time to dump. Every insane comment that scox that scox makes has to be carefully diasected, in a pain-stakingly slow process. Scox will never run of insane "red herring" statements. When - after 11 months - scox's "trade secret" scam is proven a complete lie - no problem - scox just pulls the ol' switch-a-roo and now it 's copyright claims. Doesn't matter if the copyright claim is equally bogus, scox has bought time, and that's what matters.

Insiders laughing all the way to the bank. Do you think they care if their lawyers look silly? This scam is working like a charm.

Message ID: 101790
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-03-03 10:46:00
Subject: boies and attorney/client priviledge

If this scam ever goes before a crimminal trial, I wonder if boies could be considered a co-conspirator? Boies is not just a lawyer, but was a substantial owner of the company.

As an owner of the company, boies would have clear motivation to conspire with scox to perpetuate the scam.

As I understand it, attorney/client priveldge doesn't apply if the attorney could be a co-conspirator in the crime.

Message ID: 106298
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-03-09 10:01:00
Subject: Who's *really* behind the scox-scam?

Who's the man behind the curtain that we're not supposed to see? Gates? Ballmer? Boies? Yarro? Norda?

I'm beginning to wonder if the entire thing wasn't cooked up by msft from the beginning.

Or maybe darl thought up the original idea of suing ibm, then msft jumped in with ideas of their own?

Message ID: 107482
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-03-10 12:09:00
Subject: The problems with the scox-scam?

Actually, it's a pretty good scam. Stock price went though the roof for about a year. Still there is room for improvement. Some weaknesses:

- it's dragging on too long. for a stock scam, you want a quick cash grab. the longer it goes on, the more certain that the truth will leak out.

- too many shares to unload for such a lightly traded stock.

- OSS community is too movited, too fast, follows the case too closely. About an hour after something is filed, it's all over the internet. every document and transcript is scrutinized.

- Linux loonies have more power than estimated. They can actually sway a companies purchase decision. Right Sunw? Ev1?

- no honor among thieves. boies and msft will screw scox over faster, and harder, than the OSS folks, or the courts.

Message ID: 121801
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-04-09 15:40:00
Subject: Sympathic Juries?

Said it before, I'll say it again.

Don't think that scox will necessarily win a jury's sympathies. Smart, dumb, hicks, whatever. Be certain that IBM has *very* good lawyers, and they know all about sypathic juries.

Making scox look like the bad guy would be a cinch. IANAL, but:

- McBride as "devout Mormon" ? I'd blow that notion out of the water in about ten seconds.

- IBM picking on scox? I could easily disprove that.

- First, I'd demolish all scox credibility, list dozens of outright lies made by scox execs. Think the jury would be sypathetic to a filthy liar calling himself a "devout Mormon" ? Real Mormons would be the first to hang him.

- Jury sypathetic to an extortion scam?

- Jury sypathetic to attepted theft of the work of volunteers?

b3n is a grandmother, and not a techie, yet she understands the issues. You don't have to be a software engineer to understand the issues in this case. Besides, I wouldn't assume that the technobabble is going to help help scox more than ibm.

Message ID: 126694
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-04-23 12:45:00
Subject: baystar's reputation at stake?

I don't know how this stuff works, but it seems to me the baystar's biggest concern would be to have big customers lose faith in baystar's judgement. When a company that drops $20 million into an obvious scam, do you want that company managing your money?

The money itself may be no big deal, since even in the worst case, baystar will probably only lose about half. And, let's face, everybody makes a mistake now and then. I'm sure scox is tiny part of baystar's portfolio.

But when baystar buys into an obvious stock scam, big customers, and potential big customers have to wonder about baystar's degree of research, and maybe even baystar's honesty.

Isn't there a saying that "reputation is virginity - once it's gone you can't get it back."

Message ID: 139175
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-06-01 16:31:00
Subject: gotta hand it to scox

helluva scam. I mean really, they got $28M from baystar, about $23M from msft. Scox-scum is laughing all the way the way to the bank. All they had to do was hurt linux.

Scox hit $0.60 a share when mcbride over, look at 'em now up 8X over in 18 months.

Call scox stupid all you want, they're laughing all the way to the bank while we're posting on yahoo.

Message ID: 139370
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-06-01 21:37:00
Subject: bagholders - or not? New kind of FUD?

rbc, baystar,royce, guardian - are they actually bagholders? Or, do they honestly have reason to be very satisfied?

Msft was looking to spend $100M on this little scam. Msft hasn't even given scox $30M. Is the other $70M finding it's way to rbc, baystar, royce, gaurdian? Will we ever know for sure?

I have no doubt that msft is paying a lot of shills to bash linux: enderle, greenberg, and other law firms who write those bogus articles. Not to mention all the bogus TOC "independant" studies. And stuff like AdTI.

This seems to be a new kind of fud, going thought 3rd parties, and msft is playing it up.

IBM's method of fud was bad enough, but ibm didn't do this - as far as I know. I think ibm would just have their reps makes potential buyers feel insecure about buying anything other than ibm. I don't think ibm paid 3rd parties to issue bogus opinions.

Message ID: 144210
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-06-11 15:31:00
Subject: the scox-scam was a great sucess

As the scam is winding down, the crunchies are all feeling vindicated. But, in the final analysis, msft is laughing up it's sleeve.

Scox was as good as dead 18 months ago. It was just a matter of: did scox want to die with dignity, or did scox want to live another two years and cash in? We all know scox's decision.

Msft has done what msft set out to do. For a meager $50M "chicken-feed" investment, msft pounded FOSS. Some linux companies may be doing well, but they would all be doing much better if were not for msft's remarkably efficient fud campaign. $50M is nothing to msft, msft spends that much on one of those idiotic butterfly msn commercials. Didio, and others, are still carrying on about the terrible legal risks of using FOSs.

The scox scam was a great success for canopy/scox Mormon Mafia as well. Where else can an untalented sleaze-bag like darl "earn" a million a year? Yes that's more than most American's have earned in their lifetime (average wage used to be less than $26K/yr). The insiders who have cashed in their lavish options are also laughing at the "vindicated" crunchies.

Msft wins again.

I souldn't complain, my short postions have done/are doing great.

Message ID: 154799
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-07-15 21:44:00
Subject: I bet the memo scam works

Scox is flooding the courts with oversized memo, trying for more delay. And more code to justify even more delay.

The judge reminds me of Dean Wormer from "Animal House" always threatening "just one more time" but never means it.

The judge will assume that about 10% of scox's whines are based on something of substance. So the judge will give scox about half of what scox is asking for, which is exactly what scox wants.

Scox can play this judge like a tune.

Message ID: 171919
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-08-25 08:09:00
Subject: why IBM lawyers beat scox lawyers

In all fairness, scox has spared little expense on legal fees, scox has hired some big guns.

But when we comapare the filings of the two legal teams, it's nothing but a joke. I actually find myself snickering.

My guesses:

1) Scox legal teams don't have much to work with. They don't have the facts, or the law on their side. A bunch of moron big-mouth execs can't be helping matters.

2) IBM lawyers are in for the long haul, they expect to working for IBM years from now. Scox lawyers are just there for a quick cash grab. Loyalty is not an issue with scox lawyers.

3) Scox lawyers just don't have their heart in it. They secretly hate scox, they know it's all a scam, they know scox is going to lose. Hard to be enthusiastic.

4) Scox lawyers know that the best they can do is obfuscate and delay. That, and keeping the scondrals out of prision is their real job.

Message ID: 182675
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-09-20 14:47:00
Subject: wonder how much scox is insider owned

By insiders, I don't just mean the execs who work at scox. But everybody who might by in on the scam. Rough estimates:

Canopy - 40%
Baystar - 17%
Royce - 5%
Other funds - 5%

I don't know how many shares scox owns, but add those to however many shares are owned by each canopy companies. There are about 25 canopy companies, what if those companies each owned about 1.5% of scox.

It's possible that scox could be well over 90% insider owned. That could explain the share price being out of touch with reality.

Message ID: 189187
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-10-05 12:23:00
Subject: In defense of the tin-foil hats

Just look at what has come out so far:

Msft: a convicted monopolist with a long history of abusive and illegal business
practises is found to be secretly arranging financing for a small company to file a series of bogus lawsuits against companies associated with using or promoting products that compete with msft products. Giving msft shills an
opportunity to scream about linux being legally encubered.

Deutsch Bank: an institution with a long history of fraud, aggressively, and mysteriously, supporting scox. To the point officially targeting an absurd price target of $45.

Sunw: probably the company with the most to fear from Linux in the near term, was found to be secretly supporting scox's little scam.

RBC: after all this time, we still don't know their "mystery client" why not?

Canopy: a mini-Enron, with a controlling interest in scox, playing a shell game with several small company, arranges to use scox fud-money to buy worthless canopy assets for millions.

Royce: aggressively promoting scox on MNBC, without mention their own substantial holdings.

Gartner: warning about Linux adoption, while forgetting to mention that they are largely owned by msft.

Enderle: swears up and down that he is absolutely objective, while forgeting to
mention that he is being paid by msft.

AdTI: bashes linux while forgetting to mention their own msft funding.

Where does it end? How many secret back-room deals have gone on that we don't know anything about? Remember that scene from "The Abyss" ?

What's-her-name: "Hippy, why do you think everything is a conspiracy?"
Hippy: "It is."

Message ID: 191557
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-10-12 18:27:00
Subject: of course scox is just a scam

I'd be amazed if anybody actually thought otherwise.

- If it weren't a scam, IBM would have offered a settlement over a year ago - rather than risk losing a lawsuit.

- If it weren't a scam, ibm stock price would be affected, and ibm investors would be concerned. Same for redhat, novell, autozone, and chrysler.

- if it weren't a scam, more companies would have bought into scox-source, rather than risk a justified lawsuit.

- If it weren't a scam, then last October, scox would have given ibm the discover that ibm requested in June 2003. Instead scox gamed the system with scanned .pdf files.

- If it weren't a scam, scox would have put-up, rather than shut-up in Germany.

- If it weren't a scam, there would have been no need for the NDA.

- If it weren't a scam, scox would have produced the MIT deep divers.

- If it weren't a scam, scox would have produced the infringing code, rather than risk dismissial by defying two orders.

- If it weren't a scam, scox execs would not have been caught dead-to-rights in dozens of outright lies.

- If it weren't a scam, scox lawyers would rely on logic and evidence, instead of pointless blathering about nothing.

- If it weren't a scam, scox would be anxious for the case to move forware, instead of constantly angling for more delays.

- If it weren't a scam, baystar wouldn't be so anxious to unload.

Message ID: 198962
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-10-28 11:31:00
Subject: Mind boggling, when I look at the big

picture.

Here is this tiny company, on the brink of being delisted. They loudly claim to be the owner of the UNIX operating system. They have:

- no patents
- no registered copyrights of any significants
- no trademarks
- apparently, no trade secrets

That anybody could take their insanely overblown claims seriously, for even one second, is amazing.

This same company loudly claims, in deference to all evidence and logic, that by extension they also own Linux, and BSD, and C/C++. They scream that could prove this, if they wanted to, they just don't want to. Yeah, right.

When the GPL gets in the way of their ludicrous claims, they declare the GPL is not only invalid, but unconstitution. As usual this claim defies all logic and evidence. But scox fully expects everybody to believe them, and very publicly writes congress about the matter. They also, very publicly, write thousands of major USA corporations, with their veiled threats, and demands for money.

This company loudly claims that all linux users owe them money for their scosouce linux license. But, they refuse to actually sell anybody one of these licenses. Nobody sees this as suspecious? Certainly not the mainstream media. In fact, the mainstream media, usually sides with scox, or at least seems to take scox very seriously.

This pathic blowhard annoyance of a two-bit joke company then decided to sue any array of industry giants: IBM, Chrysler, AutoZone. All these suits rest on their UNIX ownship claims. Claims which all respectable industry experts consider laughable. For the most part, scox refuses to anybody - including the courts, and the defendants - why scox is suing. Scox just sues, no reason, they just sue. Sure, that makes sense.

Suspecious funding flows into scox from companies with an anti-linux, and anti-GPL agenda, companies with a long history of unethical, even outright illegal behavior. Mysterious, unexplainable, buy recommendations come from companies with a long history of fraud. Scox's share price sky-rockets some 20X over withen a few months. Execs salaries get raised some 10X. Mysterious purchases are made. Few people raise an eyebrow. All of these actions are ignored, or even applauded, by mainstream media.

And after 20 months, the USA federal courts *still* act as if any of this is legitimate. This in spite of the fact, that scox has twice failed to produce *any* evidence after the court has ordered scox to do so.

How completely stupid can the USA justice system possibly be? How can this scam not be obvious to anybody? How can mainstream media be taken as anything other than a complete joke.

It just blows my mind.

Message ID: 203313
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-11-06 17:54:00
Subject: Scox TTL < 7 months?

TTL = Time to live.

If scox cash is about $9MM. And scox is paying BSF $2MM per quarter. Figure scox will lose another $2M per quarter in ordinary business losses per quarter. That's a burn rate rate of about $1.3MM per month. About 7 months until bankruptcy.

Acturally, that makes a lot of sense. Scox will not have to admit to their real cash crunch until mid-March. I think that is when scox will officially begin to pack it in. Close their business offices, that sort of thing. After March, the next CC will be June, but I don't scox will make it. I expect bankruptcy will be filed in May.

Helluva run. Better than most expected when the scam started.

Message ID: 211421
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-12-08 09:34:00
Subject: Did scox ever believe their own case?

Did scox ever believe that they owned JFS, RCU, NUMA? Did scox ever believe that they owned sysV? Did scox actually feel that they were wronged by IBM? Or, is the entire thing just a total scam beginning to end?

Personally, I'm willing to believe the lawsuit was only a partial scam at the beginning. I think scox may have felt wronged by IBM, Darl may have actually believed that scox owned sysV, he may still believe that. The execs who launched this scam-lawsuit don't know anything about how software is developed, maybe they actually believed something about their derivitive works theory?

I'm also very willing to believe that scox knew right from the begining that they had no case at all. The case was not designed to won, but to harass.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "walterbyrd" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.