[jacquesm]

Considerably more than that even, but the point is that in 2001 or so when they still had a company they could have made a go of it instead of doing a sleazy deal with Microsoft to become part of th FUD campaign against open source.

And at that pint there were still plenty of people on board, including of course their employees (the non-sleazy variety).

Here's the graph:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOXQ.PK&t=my&l=on&#...

[Xichekolas]

I remember at the time thinking they were a prime company to short. Their case was absurd from the get-go... it's amazing it took so long to implode.

[joe_the_user]

As I recall, the value of SCO stocked rose and dropped quite a while ago and in a predictable way, even before the trials began.

I also recall it being impossible to short SCO since said stock was not available to be borrowed and sold, ie, the stock may have gotten up to $12/share but not very many shared were actually sold at that price.

I also recall that, at at least point, SCO was able to maintain their operations primarily through an investment by Microsoft, an "investment" which just about everyone could see would not turn a profit but would provide MS value in "other ways".

This is just my memory, so corrections are welcome...