Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results 376

Posted by CmdrTaco from the it's-be-awhile-since-we-talked-about-sco dept.
gaijincory writes "SCO announced it's second quarter results Wednesday. Their net loss came in at just under $2 million. Revenue was $9.2 million (down from $10.1 million in the same quarter of the prior year). The decrease in revenue was "...primarily due to continued competitive pressures on the Company's UNIX products and services.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results More

SCO Announces Q2 2005 Results

Comments Filter:
  • Does this mean they're dying?

  • And the shareholders? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:19PM (#12706597)
    They don't think it's time to start making profit the primary motive for the operation?

    • In a public company Shareholder value (or profit) is basically always the primary motivation (which one of the reasons why some worried Google would lose its cachet after going public). Investors tend to be very fickle with their cash.

      That why SCO's been trying to do the things they've been doing.
    • They don't think it's time to start making profit the primary motive for the operation?

      Huh? Any shareholders who actually care about the company bailed a long time ago. The only ones holding stock now are day traders who hope to make a profit on the daily flucuations that come about every time the company makes the headlines.

  • Yeah, that's it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:19PM (#12706606) Journal
    primarily due to continued competitive pressures on the Company's UNIX products and services.

    That must be it. After all, that horde of lawyers and getting shot down at every turn in court isn't costing you a dime.

    • Not when Micro$oft is footing the legal bill ....
    • No: paying lawyers will not decrease your revenue. Revenue is total funds taken in, without subtracting expenses.
      • Well, if your expendatures that normally generate the revenue (R&D, Marketing, Sales), are instead going to pay off your lawyers, this can have an impact. Footing huge legal bills does nothing to increase or maintain revenue. Making and marketing a product people *want*, does.

    • Re:Yeah, that's it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:36PM (#12706785) Homepage Journal

      Actually, their statement is accurate, as far as it goes.

      For this quarter, the decreased revenue is primarily due to a shinking market for commercial Unix. Their long term prospects for increasing Unix revenue have been effectively squelched by the lawsuits.

      But their decreased cash position is due to paying lawyers.

  • 9 *million*? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ecklesweb ( 713901 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:20PM (#12706616)
    How in the WORLD did SCO manage to sell 9 *million* dollars in software? That says to me you could have a monkey on the stree selling AOL CDs and rake in a couple million...

    • Re:9 *million*? (Score:4, Informative)

      by chris_mahan ( 256577 ) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:24PM (#12706659) Homepage
      Licenses on continued use for existing installations.

      As systems get migrated to [insert OS of choice] their revenue stream will decline slowly over time.

    • Re:9 *million*? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Secrity ( 742221 )
      There are companies; including Wal-Mart and possibly McDonald's, that still use SCO Unix. I would imagine that SCO is making money by selling upgrades and support contracts to these existing customers.


    • You actually could. Of course, you'd need a big marketing budget. As the old saying says: with enough of a budget, you can sell dead cats to the health department.

    • Re:9 *million*? (Score:3, Informative)

      by eunos94 ( 254614 )
      Keep in mind that when you receive $1 million for a service contract, you don't recognize $1 million in revenue. You space it out over the contract length (ex: 10 years) and show it as revenue in tiny portions (ex: $100,000 per year). So this is probably cash they received *long* ago that is still being recognized as earned revenue in the period that it is allocated. I doubt there is a whole lot of *new* money coming in.

    • Re:9 *million*? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JediTrainer ( 314273 )
      Sadly, the company I work for still has a handful of SCO servers in our server room (fortunately I'm not responsible for any of them). We've been replacing what we could, but it's quite the project to migrate our legacy mission-critical systems (which have been running fine) to Linux.

      At least from us, they are still getting something. But it's getting less and less with every passing quarter, I would think. The main reason to migrate off the platform, ethical issues aside, is the concern about the future

  • Down with SCO (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can we drop the SCO thing yet... This is like standing on the side lines watching someone get beat to death by an angry mob and cheering for more blood.

  • Patents to the rescue? (Score:3, Funny)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:21PM (#12706625)
    The decrease in revenue was "...primarily due to continued competitive pressures on the Company's UNIX products and services.

    This is just the kind of crap that will happen when you take away a company's ability to innovate using patents and patent infringement lawsuits.

    For those of you who are uninformed, that was a sarcastic statement.

    Make my day. Mod this as Score:5, Insightful

  • Just one question... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:22PM (#12706627) Journal
    SCO announced it's second quarter results Wedensday. Their net loss came in at just under $2 million. Revenue was $9.2 million (down from $10.1 million in the same quarter of the prior year).

    How much did they pay their CEO, President, and all VP's? If they were not there, would that have made the company profitable?

    Suprisingly, this is how most CEO's think about the workforce. Look at motorola when they laid off 11,000 workers. Then the board decided to reward the CEO with a multi million dollar bonus for his hard work.

    Does SCO really need all those executives? I don't think so. If you ask me, it is the workers that are responsible for building a company, not the executives. There should be worker protection laws.

    • It's public information. From yahoo [yahoo.com]

      Mr. Darl C. McBride , 45 Chief Exec. Officer, Pres $ 986.00K N/A
      Mr. Robert K. Bench , 55 Acting VP of Corp. Devel. $ 189.00K N/A
      Mr. Bert B. Young , 50 Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer N/A N/A
      Mr. Scott Lemon , Chief Technologist N/A N/A
      Mr. Ryan E. Tibbitts , 48 VP, Corp. Sec. and Gen. Counsel $ 58.00K N/A

      Not sure why they don't list the CFO or CTO salary. This is the yearly salary, so for the quarter, it looks l

      • Re:Just one question... (Score:2, Informative)

        by windex ( 92715 )
        Mr. Darl C. McBride , 45 Chief Exec. Officer, Pres $ 986.00K N/A

        That works out to $986,000. That's almost a million of it right there. Not sure where you're getting $300,000 total, the K at the end means 'thousands'. The decmial place is just there so you can say like, 11.20K for 11,200.

    • Does SCO really need all those executives? I don't think so. If you ask me, it is the workers that are responsible for building a company, not the executives. There should be worker protection laws.

      It's not as if SCO is actually doing anything any more. I mean, what do they need? A couple of guys to keep the network going, a janitor to clean up the vomit and the bloodstains, and two floors of lawyers. Oh yeah, they've got to give O'Hare some cash for whoring her journalistic principals.

      I really

  • What you have to realise is, they have dropped revenue by almost 10%, and the BULK of the fallout from their manic activities probably won't hit them until the next product upgrade cycle, and then they will vanish like a planet making way for a hyper-galactic-express route.

    SCO: Mostly Harmless.

    They are burning more in legal costs than R&D and their business strategy relies on legal proceedings. Plus, they are trying to sell muddy water to atlantians.

    Dear SCO,

    I feel sorry for you, we gave you a pitta

  • suing customers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:23PM (#12706643) Homepage
    I'm sure their habit of suing their own customers has greatly helped their position in the market as well. I know that I always prefer to buy things from someone who'll sue me for having bought it later. And while I'm at it, can I get one of those new cars with the bear trap built into the accelerator pedal? :)

    • Re:suing customers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dukael_Mikakis ( 686324 ) <[andrewfoerster] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:29PM (#12706706)
      It seems so obvious, doesn't it? Don't sue the people who pay your bills.

      The problem is that too often public companies, especially ones that aren't doing well, end up having to resort to short-term moneymaking schemes to meet their earnings (so that they have a chance to sell more stock and raise more funds).

      SCO's short-sighted profit-boosting measures should have been (and likely were) regarded as signs of a company that was (well, is) in serious trouble.
      • Anyone who's ever been the plaintiff in a lawsuit knows that it's not a "short-term moneymaking scheme." Watch the movie A Civil Action to see what life is like for the majority of plaintiffs and their lawyers. It's not short-term and it's not often moneymaking.

  • Current events, calendar. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:23PM (#12706648)

    Here's a list of the some of the current activity of SCO's various court battles.

    Quick update: SCO has filed a "report" [groklaw.net] stating that they will not be filing a motion for a preliminary restraining order against Autozone.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Four motions have been briefed, and a hearing was held on 21 May 2005. Judge Kimball is still considering these motions regarding the scheduling order, the motion to narrow the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim, the motion to depose IBM's CEO, and SCO's motion to file another amended complaint. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out, with IBM and SCO apparently unable to agree entirely on what will remain sealed. Another discovery battle is shaping up around the issue of privilege logs, though the parties have agreed to consult [groklaw.net] with each other before making a motion to the court to resolve such disputes.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has taken Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's amended complaint under advisement, after the 25 May 2005 hearing.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case is still completely stayed. However, "if the claims or counterclaims in the pending SCO litigations change, and it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources for this court to consider whether the LINUX system contains any misappropriated UNIX system source code, or if there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues of this case, or the Utah litigation," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay.

    • SCOvAutoZone: The "60 days of limited discovery" regarding the preliminary restraining order have ended, and SCO has declined the opportunity to file a motion for a preliminary restraining order. Thus, the matter is stayed "pending further order of the court." In SCO's report [groklaw.net] to the court regarding the just completed discovery, SCO hints that it may file a motion to lift the stay to pursue claims "based solely on Autozone's migration to Linux," because they claim to have found "extensive copying ... of what SCO believes to be programs containing ... OpenServer code." This matter is unrelated to any copyright infringement action SCO could bring against a general Linux user.

    In summary:

  • he decrease in revenue was "...primarily due to continued competitive pressures on the Company's UNIX products and services.""

    I'm sorry I just can't stop ROTFLMFAO....

  • Oh wait. It's only the falling expectations of all them SCO investors.

  • SCO has a strong Plan of Action (Score:3, Funny)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:26PM (#12706682) Homepage Journal
    1. Steal code from open source and pretend it's theirs.
    2. Sue open source. ...
    4. Profit!

    Ok, so it's the same as the Gnomes Underwear Plan on South Park, but it's TWICE as EFFECTIVE!

    0 x 2 = 0

    • This is similar to Steven Wright's joke that he tried using his car key to unlock his house and it started up so he took it for a spin. Then he parked it on the highway and told everyone to get the hell off his driveway. Of course, Wright was joking. SCO seemed to think this sort of thing could work which is hugely bizarre.
    • 1: get on SCO board
      2: Start up silly law suit which you know will bankrupt the company most likely , but if you win your sorted anyway
      3: embezzle all the cash you can whilst driving the company into the ground
      4: lose lawsuit and declair bankrupcy
      5: run away profit in hand and laugh
  • "Their net loss came in at just under $2 million."

    And they earned every penny of it.
  • The SCO Group's deal with Cymphonix [sco.com] is an interesting one. Cymphonix apparently sells a Linux based appliance, using Squid, Netfilter, etc.

    Especially of interest here is the use of Netfilter by Cymphonix, given Harald Welte involvement in both Netfilter and in the in dealing with GPL violations. [gpl-violations.org]

    To add to the fun, it even appears that Cymphonix is either using or preparing to use 2.6.x versions of Linux. [netfilter.org]

  • Profitable Business Plan? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:42PM (#12706840) Homepage Journal
    It seems like there are still a couple of companies out there that still use SCO software. I'm wondering if it would be profitable to start a consulting firm specializing in moving your proprietary in-house software to other UNIX platforms. Those folks should be starting to get nervous about their platform of choice still being around this time next year...
    • Perhaps I can start a support group website for all the braindamaged investors who actually thought that SCO could get a licensing fee from each install of Linux. Or maybe I could just sell these chumps the Brooklyn Bridge and the iron from the Eiffel Tower.
  • Yay!

  • Nowhere to go but down (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nytewynd ( 829901 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:50PM (#12706908)
    SCO is competeting directly against a free version of Unix that is better in almost every way, especially on price.

    Unless they have some kind of ingenious plan (which I doubt considering they almost always get sued when they try something new), what do they have left to offer? I guess they have the "support" options for companies too nervous to dive into a Linux environment, but that support is only as good as the company you get it from anyway.

    I got to install SCO on a PC back in about 1997. I loved it at the time, mostly because it converted my PC to Unix. Otherwise, I was much happier with either Solaris, AIX or HP-UX. SCO ranked pretty low on the list. Most versions of Linux rank right up near the top of the list now, and also run on a PC. I don't see why people would choose SCO.
    • It's not so much that people are chosing SCO, that decision has already been made; they are choosing not to replace existing SCO based infrastructures. For many large SCO customers conversion from SCO to another Unix or to Linux would involve considerable pain and expense.

  • Avaya and SCO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AlbieWK ( 629189 )
    One of my clients uses Avaya Conversant Voice Response Units. The underlying engine is a Unix box running SCO. Avaya announced more than a year ago that they were de-supporting the platform. New platform runs SunOS. Coincidence? I think not.

  • No Boom? (Score:2)

    by oGMo ( 379 )

    There was supposed to be an earth-shattering BOOM!

    Seriously, when does the "SCO goes down in flames" lightshow begin? How long has it been? And where can I buy front-row seats for the trial where IBM and the judge smacks them around?

  • From TFA: (Score:3, Informative)

    by mjuarez ( 12463 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:58PM (#12706979)
    UNIX Business The Company plans to release SCO OpenServer 6 on June 22, 2005 at an event for SCO's software and hardware partners, customers, and members of the media and analyst community in New York City. SCO OpenServer 6 has been a multi-year, multi-million dollar development effort and is the most significant upgrade in the product's history. The product has been designed to provide customers with increased performance and security enhancements, access to numerous applications, and integrates many popular Open Source technologies. The product has been in active pre-release testing since the beginning of the year with many of the Company's leading SCO OpenServer customers and has been favorably received.
    Interesting. It seems they somehow figured out that open source could help their pitiful piece of software. What now? Are they gonna sue themselves? Amazing.
  • About SCO
    The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers to grow
    their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide
    network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services
    provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers.
    For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com./ [www.sco.com]

    Thousands of resellers and developers. Millions of customers. Doesn't sound like the SCO I know...anymore.

  • it's simple, really... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alakaboo ( 171129 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @03:11PM (#12707111) Homepage
    alt.sco.die.die.die
  • These guys are still in business?

  • Much larger companies didn't take this long to die with simmilar losses even though they had much higher revenue. Commodore for example fell due to simmilar losses in the single digit millions but they were making revenue in the single digit BILLIONS!

    If Commodore couldn't handle long-term $2 Million losses with a total revenue over $1 Billion, what makes you think you can handle it with less than $10 Million in revenue, SCO? Just die already!

  • compensation to law firms (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @04:41PM (#12707959) Journal


    Accrued compensation to law firms:
    2005: --
    2004: $7,956,000

    I am not familar with this '--' in the context of accounting.
    Does this mean:

    a) 'zero'.
    b) $7,955,000.
    c) they dont know/lost track
    d) they are too embarrassed to say
    e) ERR: Overflow

    ?

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close