Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCO Source income: $32,000. Legal bills: $3 million
CNET ^ | September 9, 2005, 8:58 AM PDT | By Graeme Wearden Special to CNET News.com

Posted on 09/09/2005 10:53:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

SCO Source income: $32,000. Legal bills: $3 million

By Graeme Wearden

http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com, marketwatch-cnet.com.com/SCO+Source+income+32%2C000.+Legal+bills+3+million/2100-7344_3-5856675.html



Story last modified Fri Sep 09 08:58:00 PDT 2005

<div><img><br><a><img></a></div>

SCO has seen a sharp decline in income, as enterprises fail to be tempted by its Linux indemnification program.

The litigious Unix vendor announced this week that revenues for its most recent quarter, which ended July 30, were $9.35 million compared to $11.2 million (5.09 million and 6.10 million pounds, respectively) for the same period in 2004. SCO posted a loss of $2.4 million over the three-month period, compared to a profit of $7.5 million for the same period the year before.

This decline was caused by a drop in income from SCO's Unix products and by legal bills of $3 million. This stemmed from SCO's ongoing court cases against IBM and Novell, among others, over its claim that its intellectual property was unlawfully included in Linux.

Under a much-lambasted licensing program, SCO has been offering a license to companies that use Linux, saying that it will protect them from action by its legal department. But very few companies have acquiesced to what many see as a groundless threat. The program, called SCO Source, brought in revenues of just $32,000 during the quarter, compared to SCO's overall legal costs of $3.1 million.

These figures mirror a similar poor performance in the second quarter of this year, in which revenues dropped to $9.3 million--down from $10.5 million for the same period in 2004.

Analysts at Ovum were scathing about SCO's performance.

"SCO is failing," said Ovum analyst Gary Barnett, who was unimpressed by the performance of SCO Source. "The company's UNIX revenues continue to decline, as the 'continued competitive pressures' cited in the company's earnings release continue a trend that's been running for several years now."

Ovum advises companies not to buy a SCO Source license unless SCO provides a money-back guarantee in the event the company is defeated in the courts.

SCO chief executive Darl McBride tried to put a positive spin on the situation, claiming that the third quarter was "a productive quarter for SCO."

<

"Our UNIX business operated profitably for the third consecutive quarter and we launched SCO OpenServer 6 which has received many favorable reviews and is showing traction with customers," claimed McBride in a statement.

Ovum, though, offered a more pragmatic overview.

"If you're considering buying OpenServer you need to look at your options. If you need more licenses to support an existing deployment, there is no need to panic--Open Server may change hands in the next couple of years but it won't disappear. Over the longer term you should consider alternatives from both the open-source community (Linux) or from other Unix vendors (notably OpenSolaris on x86)," the analyst group said.

Graeme Wearden of ZDNet UK reported from London.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: linux; sco

1 posted on 09/09/2005 10:53:19 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; HAL9000; rdb3; Salo

fyi


2 posted on 09/09/2005 10:54:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Burn Baby Burn


3 posted on 09/09/2005 10:55:58 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget (If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Schadenfreude. :-)


4 posted on 09/09/2005 10:57:52 AM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Years ago Microsoft had a big minority position in SCO.
Do they still?
Are the SCO suits a Microsoft stalking horse against Open Source?
Or just desperate greed?

So9

5 posted on 09/09/2005 10:59:47 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Those Poor Poor Rubber Cows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
SCO chief executive Darl McBride tried to put a positive spin on the situation, claiming that the third quarter was "a productive quarter for SCO."

We will roast IBM's stomach in hell! All your Unix are belong to us!

6 posted on 09/09/2005 11:03:36 AM PDT by GaltMeister (“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaltMeister

ROFL!

That guy is showing up all over the place.


7 posted on 09/09/2005 11:35:40 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
MSFT no longer does. The Chairman of SCO owns 30% of the stock and Baystar Capital, an investment firm affiliated with Hicks, Muse holds 10%.

No one else holds more than 6%,

8 posted on 09/09/2005 11:42:10 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
So nobody's buying the BS. Not surprising.

BTW, have you seen, SCO yet again said it didn't get everything it asked for? They pissed off the judge a bit on their last request, prompting her "rote objections" comment, so I wonder if they'll prevail yet again. If so, forget the current schedule.

9 posted on 09/09/2005 2:08:48 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Baystar Capital, an investment firm affiliated with Hicks, Muse holds 10%.

And falling. IIRC, they've been selling off their SCO stock as fast as the agreement with SCO allows.

10 posted on 09/09/2005 2:09:59 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. We dropped SCO as an offering to our customers in 2001, I can't believe we waited that long.


11 posted on 09/09/2005 11:28:41 PM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson