Re; PURE Crap-Shoot
Blash
<<SCOX.......
Upside---Could be BIG
Downside---100%
Timeframe---couple months(+/-)
Reason--Too humid to go to the track>>
Now you see why I called it a crap-shoot.......
Pies de Arcilla
I couldn't get shares to short, but I bought 1 share @ 13.15 on
02/24/2004 to commemorate where I would like to have shorted it.
If there had been put options available, I would be rich now.
I have never seen a stock that I was so certain it was going to zero.
And it's galling as hell that I wasn't able to make any money on it.
Blash
Arcilla at dear...@gmail.com wrote on 8/13/07 10:41 AM:
It could have gone the other way just as easily IF the judge ruled
differently........THAT'S why I called it a crap-shoot........
Pies de Arcilla
> in article 1187016061.815300.294...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com, Pies de
> Arcilla at dearci...@gmail.com wrote on 8/13/07 10:41 AM:
Well, if you had been reading groklaw.net carefully, you might have
been better informed about the case. The judge was not completely
insane, so the chances of anything favorable happening for SCO after
that point were zero.
Pies de Arcilla
A relevant bit of history:
`On February 4, 2003, McBride contacted Christopher Stone, Vice
Chairman of Novell, and stated that he wanted Novell to "amend" the
APA to give SCO "the copyrights to UNIX." '
It wasn't just that they didn't own the intellectual property they
were basing the case on, they _knew_ that they didn't own it, and
anyone who was following the case could have and should have been
absolutely certain by early '04 that there wasn't a snowball's chance
in hell of any positive outcome.
Blash
Arcilla at dear...@gmail.com wrote on 8/13/07 3:33 PM:
Not only did I not read it carefully, I never read it at all.......I bought
it because of something that never hit any papers, BUT had a possibility of
bringing about a different outcome.......It didn't happen so I lost a roll
of the dice......
I PROMISE: I will not pull a bob wald and keep averaging down and then
wetting my pants if it moves up $0.0001
Bill Reid
Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187036594....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 3:33 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 11:09 am, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > in article 1187016061.815300.294...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com, Pies
de
> > > Arcilla at dearci...@gmail.com wrote on 8/13/07 10:41 AM:
> > > > On Aug 13, 9:29 am, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> I wrote on 7/24/07:
> >
> > > >> <<SCOX.......
> > > >> Upside---Could be BIG
> > > >> Downside---100%
> > > >> Timeframe---couple months(+/-)
> > > >> Reason--Too humid to go to the track>>
> >
> > > >> Now you see why I called it a crap-shoot.......
> >
> > > > I couldn't get shares to short, but I bought 1 share @ 13.15 on
> > > > 02/24/2004 to commemorate where I would like to have shorted it.
Uh, yeah, that would have been pretty close to the perfect time (maybe
a little earlier and a little higher), as it was collapsing from its
ridiculously
inflated price based on sheer idiocy. With the right broker, there WERE
shares to short, and I remember making some decent coin off this
"no-brainer"...
> > > > If there had been put options available, I would be rich now.
> >
> > > > I have never seen a stock that I was so certain it was going to
zero.
You must have missed all those dot-coms a few years earlier...even
Barron's knew there were hundreds REALLY going to zero, and the
old "Santa Cruz Operation" has enough actual business to support a
stock price of as much as $0.25...
> > > > And it's galling as hell that I wasn't able to make any money on it.
Every serious investor of sufficient weight should have more than
one broker if only for situations like this...
> > > It could have gone the other way just as easily IF the judge ruled
> > > differently........THAT'S why I called it a crap-shoot........
I haven't looked at this nonsense for years now, but my limited
understanding is that even if the ruling Friday had gone the other
way, it still would have very questionable as to whether SCOX
could have ever sustained on its actual original lawsuit...I'm
amazed this has been dragging on as long as it has, since their
case (and their entire company) always seemed like it was being
run by retarded 5-year-olds...
> > Well, if you had been reading groklaw.net carefully, you might have
> > been better informed about the case. The judge was not completely
> > insane, so the chances of anything favorable happening for SCO after
> > that point were zero.
I always liked the part where they would never actually say what
code was actually "stolen", because they were afraid IBM would
then "un-steal" it surreptiously...
> A relevant bit of history:
> `On February 4, 2003, McBride contacted Christopher Stone, Vice
> Chairman of Novell, and stated that he wanted Novell to "amend" the
> APA to give SCO "the copyrights to UNIX." '
Yeah, the "smoking gun" for the summary judgement Friday.
What the hell are "the copyrights to UNIX" in the first friggin'
place? I guess the judge just gave up and decided it was the
System V release tree, since apparently the morons who wrote
the contract couldn't be distracted from their finger-painting
and nap-time long enough to actually specify anything concrete.
Of course, I kind of understand how that happened...the
only thing AT&T could actually license was the TRADEMARK
UNIX(R) under compatibility agreements, the friggin' source
code was considered to be largely worthless since the actual
functionality of UNIX has been replicated by just about
every 13-year-old hack on the planet...
> It wasn't just that they didn't own the intellectual property they
> were basing the case on, they _knew_ that they didn't own it, and
> anyone who was following the case could have and should have been
> absolutely certain by early '04 that there wasn't a snowball's chance
> in hell of any positive outcome.
The general drill for lawsuits is to first check if the company is
a big loser in the first place and just trying a desperation move
against a winner in the marketplace to get any type of revenue
in the door. If it fails the first check, like SCOX, most of the
time you don't even have to proceed to the second, third, and
fourth checks, or actually know much about the case...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 740
carolyn
to issued another million shares!!!