http://alliance.marketwatch.com/cust...pidx=aaaaa%3A0

Over 100,000 shares dumped in one go! Could this be related to the
news that SCO have failed to provide the court with the evidence
required by the 10th of this month?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40113155313281

Let's hope some of the opportunists are finally waking up to the fact
that this is nothing more than Darl and co's pump'n'dump stock scam...

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

In article <sbo9005uen9a65ekh5dee550t25ns908nm@4ax.com>,
FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>http://alliance.marketwatch.com/cust...pidx=aaaaa%3A0

>Over 100,000 shares dumped in one go! Could this be related to the
>news that SCO have failed to provide the court with the evidence
>required by the 10th of this month?

>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40113155313281

>Let's hope some of the opportunists are finally waking up to the fact
>that this is nothing more than Darl and co's pump'n'dump stock scam...

And it could be that it's just some of those who really don't care
what the stock is they are buying or selling, but looking for
stocks to make moves in either direction so they can profit by it.

Sell high buy low is just as valid as buy low and sell high.

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

bv@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<HrHKGM.C8B@wjv.com>...
> In article <sbo9005uen9a65ekh5dee550t25ns908nm@4ax.com>,
> FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
> >http://alliance.marketwatch.com/cust...pidx=aaaaa%3A0
>
> >Over 100,000 shares dumped in one go! Could this be related to the
> >news that SCO have failed to provide the court with the evidence
> >required by the 10th of this month?
>
> >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40113155313281
>
> >Let's hope some of the opportunists are finally waking up to the fact
> >that this is nothing more than Darl and co's pump'n'dump stock scam...
>
> And it could be that it's just some of those who really don't care
> what the stock is they are buying or selling, but looking for
> stocks to make moves in either direction so they can profit by it.
>
> Sell high buy low is just as valid as buy low and sell high.

Have you confirmed this is insider trading, or are we assuming?
Regards...Dan.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:28:43 +0000, FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
wrote:

>http://alliance.marketwatch.com/cust...pidx=aaaaa%3A0

That's a graph of the SCOX stock price for the last 10 daze. Where
are the 100,000 shares?

>Over 100,000 shares dumped in one go! Could this be related to the
>news that SCO have failed to provide the court with the evidence
>required by the 10th of this month?
>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40113155313281

That's a story on SCO's semi-compliance with the court ordered
disclosures. Whare are the 100,000 shares?

>Let's hope some of the opportunists are finally waking up to the fact
>that this is nothing more than Darl and co's pump'n'dump stock scam...

See:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX

http://finance.lycos.com/qc/research...ls=NASDAQ:SCOX
which are lists of insider trades. Reuters/Multex also doesn't show
anything. Where are the 100,000 shares?



--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> wrote:
> Where are the 100,000 shares?

On the day FYRE posted that story I made a quick visit to Yahoo financial
and noted the single spike the graph loosely indicated approximately
100,000 shares in a single lump.

I do not think they were "strickly speaking" insider trades - much more
likely a large trust fund divesting a questionable investment.

I am always surprised that SCO stock is so resilient but then I understand
that Darl & Company make it their career to run around telling the most
amazing Fish stories about the "Big Payoff"! They are still showing that
same tired 80 lines of code to their potential investors without revealing
of course that they have no proprietary rights to that code.

It is equally amazing to me that people we would normally consider
intelligent professional investors can allow themselves to become so easily
hooked by the stream of lies coming from Darl & Company.

I await with baited breath January 23rd when SCO and IBM meet again.

Oh, another interesting sidebar - Blake Stowell now claims there will be no
copyrighted code in the material handed over to IBM Monday - the reason
being the case is NOT ABOUT copyright but about beach of contract etc.

On the other hand, IBM has specifically requested all code SCO claims any
right to so if their is no copyrighted code in the materials given to IBM,
then by inference, there is no copyrighted code conflict.

The SCO Group Lies Cheats and Steals.

Why would anybody still want to work with them?

Brian

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:

>The SCO Group Lies Cheats and Steals.

>Why would anybody still want to work with them?

Because we care about our clients? Or our business?

Because the aforementioned clients mostly don't care or even pay much
attention to all this noise? Because they just want to run their
business and aren't going to incur expense and trouble just because
you say that it's all a big lie?

Why would anybody keep asking the same question over and over? You
are just going to get the same answer every time: it isn't about
Darl, it's about business.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:37:51 GMT, Brian <brian@stanley-park.com>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> wrote:
>> Where are the 100,000 shares?
>
>On the day FYRE posted that story I made a quick visit to Yahoo financial
>and noted the single spike the graph loosely indicated approximately
>100,000 shares in a single lump.

I can see the glitch at:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
which shows approximately 75,000 shares traded on Jan 12. However,
the stock price went up, not down, the next day, which implied a buy,
not a sale. Also, on the day Frye posted his notice, Jan 14, the
graph shows no such large large transactions. Assuming the original
comments are in reference to the Jan 12 trades, I'm also curious how
Frye determined that they were all from a single sale by "investors"
which I guess covers everyone with stock including employees.

The 6 month chart at:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
shows 2.5 million shares traded in one day in mid October. 100K
shares is small by comparison. Since then, there were innumerable
days when more than 100K shares were traded with an average volume of
325K shares per day.

>I do not think they were "strickly speaking" insider trades - much more
>likely a large trust fund divesting a questionable investment.

Well, I couldn't find anything in the financial news, stock reports,
and rumor lists. So, I figured that if this was earthshaking news
worthy of a posting to comp.unix.sco.misc, that perhaps it might have
been an insider trade.

>I am always surprised that SCO stock is so resilient but then I understand
>that Darl & Company make it their career to run around telling the most
>amazing Fish stories about the "Big Payoff"!

Simple gambling theory will show the merits of investing in SCOX. If
there's a small chance that SCO will win big bux from IBM that will
create a larger proportional increase in the stock price, it's a
worthy risk. However, I suspect much of the buying has been based on
programmed trading, which is looking at the historical rise of the
stock price since the lawsuit was announced early May 2003.

>They are still showing that
>same tired 80 lines of code to their potential investors without revealing
>of course that they have no proprietary rights to that code.

I agree with the Greek chorus. If there is massive infringement, at
least let the defendent (IBM) see the code.

>It is equally amazing to me that people we would normally consider
>intelligent professional investors can allow themselves to become so easily
>hooked by the stream of lies coming from Darl & Company.

Thanks for assuming that all SCOX investors are gullible idiots. Most
investors do their homework. It would not take much for them to look
at the various news reports and see for themselves where SCOX stands.
Much of the news points to Groklaw and Slashdot, so there's no way a
competent investor could miss both sides of the issue.

>I await with baited breath January 23rd when SCO and IBM meet again.

Yep. My prediction (insert drum roll) is that David Boise pulls a
repetition of his inept defense of Napster, and just stands there with
nothing to offer.

>Oh, another interesting sidebar - Blake Stowell now claims there will be no
>copyrighted code in the material handed over to IBM Monday - the reason
>being the case is NOT ABOUT copyright but about beach of contract etc.

Let's pretend that SCO hands over a bunch of disjointed code
fragments, header files, and in house analysis. IBM will of course
leak it to the world. Groklaw and Slashdot will analyze the code in
detail and predictably declare non-infringement. From that point, how
long would you think it would take the court to come to the same
conclusion? Based on some dated personal experience, my guess is
about 6 months minimum. Let the show go on...

>On the other hand, IBM has specifically requested all code SCO claims any
>right to so if their is no copyrighted code in the materials given to IBM,
>then by inference, there is no copyrighted code conflict.

Yep. Also, no damages to SCO as SCO is contributory to the
infringement by not attempting to mitigate the damage.

>The SCO Group Lies Cheats and Steals.

Ummm.... I've worked for only 2 large corporations and played
consultant to about 3 more. They all lied, cheated, and stole,
especially when driven by the legal departments. The difference here
is that it's being done in public. In most cases, only the affected
parties care much. That's not to condone the misinformation, but just
to underscore that it's not unusual. Ever read through a pile of
interrogatories? They're usually at least 50% distortions and lies.

>Why would anybody still want to work with them?

Idealism has its price, especially when you have a family and mortgage
company to feed. Don't tell me you've never been asked by an employer
to do something unethical, improper, or devious? If not, you must
lead a sheltered life.


--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

"Tony Lawrence" <apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bu6ou7$kju$1@pcls4.std.com...
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>
> >The SCO Group Lies Cheats and Steals.
>
> >Why would anybody still want to work with them?

<< snip>>

> Why would anybody keep asking the same question over and over? You
> are just going to get the same answer every time: it isn't about
> Darl, it's about business.
>
Dense?
Slow?
Obstinate?
Or maybe a government employee who doesn't have to worry about the next
paycheck.

Ron

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Brian wrote:

> I can see the glitch at:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
> which shows approximately 75,000 shares traded on Jan 12. However,
> the stock price went up, not down, the next day, which implied a buy,
> not a sale.

I noted two large sales (50K and 80K) and a drop of 75 cents over a period
of about 1 hour after the first trade.

>>I do not think they were "strickly speaking" insider trades - much more
>>likely a large trust fund divesting a questionable investment.

>>I am always surprised that SCO stock is so resilient but then I understand
>>that Darl & Company make it their career to run around telling the most
>>amazing Fish stories about the "Big Payoff"!

> Simple gambling theory will show the merits of investing in SCOX. If
> there's a small chance that SCO will win big bux from IBM that will
> create a larger proportional increase in the stock price, it's a
> worthy risk. However, I suspect much of the buying has been based on
> programmed trading, which is looking at the historical rise of the
> stock price since the lawsuit was announced early May 2003.

Interwsting. You are suggesting that by having an initial growth pattern
based on unsubstaniated statements by Garl & Company that now people
running stock bots are propping up the price?

>>They are still showing that same tired 80 lines of code to their
>>potential investors without revealing of course that they have no
>>proprietary rights to that code.

> I agree with the Greek chorus. If there is massive infringement, at
> least let the defendent (IBM) see the code.

There is no code.

>>It is equally amazing to me that people we would normally consider
>>intelligent professional investors can allow themselves to become so
>>easily hooked by the stream of lies coming from Darl & Company.

> Thanks for assuming that all SCOX investors are gullible idiots. Most
> investors do their homework. It would not take much for them to look
> at the various news reports and see for themselves where SCOX stands.
> Much of the news points to Groklaw and Slashdot, so there's no way a
> competent investor could miss both sides of the issue.

SCOX investors are gullible idiots - they are going to lose everything.

>>I await with baited breath January 23rd when SCO and IBM meet again.

> Yep. My prediction (insert drum roll) is that David Boise pulls a
> repetition of his inept defense of Napster, and just stands there with
> nothing to offer.

So you believe David Boise will actually make an appearance this time?

>>Oh, another interesting sidebar - Blake Stowell now claims there will be
>>no copyrighted code in the material handed over to IBM Monday - the reason
>>being the case is NOT ABOUT copyright but about beach of contract etc.

> Let's pretend that SCO hands over a bunch of disjointed code
> fragments, header files, and in house analysis. IBM will of course
> leak it to the world.

IBM will not leak it to the world.

> Groklaw and Slashdot will analyze the code in detail and
> predictably declare non-infringement. From that point, how
> long would you think it would take the court to come to the
> same conclusion? Based on some dated personal experience, my
> guess is about 6 months minimum. Let the show go on...

I doubt SCO will last another 120 days.

The first thing that will happen is IBM will move to strike a number of
claims baised on the documents they have received or will receive form SCO
this month.

>>On the other hand, IBM has specifically requested all code SCO claims any
>>right to so if their is no copyrighted code in the materials given to IBM,
>>then by inference, there is no copyrighted code conflict.

> Yep. Also, no damages to SCO as SCO is contributory to the
> infringement by not attempting to mitigate the damage.

>>The SCO Group Lies Cheats and Steals.

> Ummm.... I've worked for only 2 large corporations and played
> consultant to about 3 more. They all lied, cheated, and stole,
> especially when driven by the legal departments. The difference here
> is that it's being done in public. In most cases, only the affected
> parties care much. That's not to condone the misinformation, but just
> to underscore that it's not unusual. Ever read through a pile of
> interrogatories? They're usually at least 50% distortions and lies.

Not my experience.

>>Why would anybody still want to work with them?

> Idealism has its price, especially when you have a family and mortgage
> company to feed. Don't tell me you've never been asked by an employer
> to do something unethical, improper, or devious? If not, you must
> lead a sheltered life.

I must be lucky.

Best regards,

Brian

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
<SNIP>

>Yep. My prediction (insert drum roll) is that David Boise pulls a
>repetition of his inept defense of Napster, and just stands there with
>nothing to offer.
>
>
Napster too? I know about MS vs DoJ, Al Gore, and one of them having a
hard time disposing of a lawsuit involving a non-lawyer defending
himself (dragged on 5 odd years now?).

Any others I've missed?

>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:37:51 GMT, Brian <brian@stanley-park.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The SCO Group Lies Cheats and Steals.
>>
>>
>
>Ummm.... I've worked for only 2 large corporations and played
>consultant to about 3 more. They all lied, cheated, and stole,
>especially when driven by the legal departments. The difference here
>is that it's being done in public. In most cases, only the affected
>parties care much. That's not to condone the misinformation, but just
>to underscore that it's not unusual. Ever read through a pile of
>interrogatories? They're usually at least 50% distortions and lies.
>
>
I've only worked for 1 large corporation, 2nd largest in the world in
their area of manufactiring. They are forever banned from doing
business in Turkey because they got caught out falsifying import
documentation to help the client save on duties. For some reason,
Califonia decided to fine them half a million dollars - go figure. I've
only worked for one medium business but they would shaft clients any
chance they got, including charging for one set of licences twice, once
under misc licences, and again specifically for the one licence, to the
tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

I agree that one big differrence here is that they did it sneakily
behind people back. SCO are doing it blatantly to people's faces.

You say that only the affected parties care much. IMHO, this is the
biggest difference - the pool of affected parties is so much larger
because they took on a community rather than a business. Businesses are
supposed to be passionless. Communities are quite the opposite.

I put it to you that, still, only the affected parties care much.

--
Scott Burns
Mirrabooka Systems

Tel +61 7 3857 7899
Fax +61 7 3857 1368