Slashdot Mirror

That information vn be found on an SEC filling

As was mentioned above, the address given is actually the address of the Santa Monica airport. It seems reasonable to believe that it would be a felony to provide a fake address on a SEC filing.

That information vn be found on an SEC filling

Extend the boycott to the source of our collective angst.

That would be The Quadrangle Group and General Atlantic, the owners of Dice Holdings.

I'm sure they're not too pleased as is with Dice Holdings, but might be unaware that their subsidiary is killing a cash cow through sheer stubbornness.

Bill Veghte was the head of Microsoft's Windows marketing and business development through Vista and leading to the Windows 7 launch. A 19 year Microsoft veteran. He went from there to HP in 2010, first to lead up the software division including Autonomy. In January of this year he became HP's Chief Strategy Officer, and in May he rocketed up to his current position. He is currently HP's Chief Operating Officer responsible for HP's day-to-day operations and being groomed for CEO, which was tipped to be an insider next time.

Now with Windows 8 launch at a critical phase Microsoft needs their man at the top of HP to keep it from falling off the Windows wagon when everybody else is getting drunk on mobile profit dollars that Microsoft platforms don't get a swig of.

That she will step down is obvious. She just wrote down 8.8 billion dollars in a stroke on a deal she voted as Chairman and CEO to approve. Monday that was 1/4th of HP's market cap, and as I write this it's over a third. HP has to sell about 300 million laptops to earn that sort of operating profit - which would take a decade. It's over a year's entire payroll. And that's not all. If you look at their balance sheet they have written off 20 billion dollars in goodwill in the last year - or as I write this, 87% of their current market capitalization - in one year. Those writedowns are effectively saying "oops. We overpaid for acquisitions." In this competitive environment a company the size of HP doesn't have the luxury of throwing away $20B overpaying for acquisitions. This is not poor judgement. It is quite clearly deliberately stripping a legendary company's assets to be the profits of external entities. It is a capital siphon. Somebody should be going to prison.

Really, who would pay over 11 billion dollars for a software company? That's 10,000 man years of American software engineer salary, or 50,000 man years of global mix software engineers. You could put a man on Mars for that much money. Software is hard, but it's not that hard. That is over 200 times what Google paid for Android, which last quarter was the world's most popular operating environment by devices shipped.

Sure, you can't blame her for too many of the other $11B, but really it doesn't matter at this point. If you're the boss everything that goes wrong is your fault. Else why even have a boss?

And yes, I did predict these things here - that he would be in position to be made CEO around the time of Windows 8 launch, that Autonomy would be written down. But I didn't put the two things together because there was no telling when they would do the writedown. If not for the writedown it would have to be another board scandal or something. Bill Veghte is HP's Elop. He will drive HP with a focus on optimizing the benefit to Microsoft until HP is no more. And for some reason he will be impossible for shareholders to remove until it is too late.

We still don't know where Sinofsky is going. He'll probably guru out in India for a while before he surfaces at the head of another tech company. And when he does, it's doomed.

The public drug companies are required to file financial reports with the SEC, which generally detail their budgets (at least to a sufficient level of granularity for this discussion). EDGAR is one avenue of getting at them (10-Q for example for quarterly reporting). But yeah, he's not lying, R&D expenditures are not the majority line item for most large pharmaceutical companies. If anything, Big Pharma has been on the whole aggressively cutting R&D over the past few years.

Just for one concrete example, here's Pfizer's 10-Q from late last year:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/DisplayFiling.aspx?TabIndex=2&FilingID=8236559&companyid=5709&ppu=%252fDefault.aspx%253fcompanyid%253d5709%2526amp%253bformtypeID%253d13

Click into "Financial Statements" there. I think the given figures are in units of "millions," so they spent about $2.1Bn on R&D during the given quarter, compared to $4.6Bn for "Selling, informational and administrative expenses" (which probably includes marketing) and $3.7Bn for "Cost of sales" (not sure, might be raw materials and manufacturing?).

First of all, if Apple does any R&D, I'm fully unaware of it.

Apparently, such fullsome unawareness is a willful choice on your part, because R&D is a line item in public companies' income statements. Looks like Apple spent $758 million last quarter. If that's typical, then that's about $3 billion a year.

I guess you're fully aware now.

Well according to their quarterly earnings ending March 31, 2001, Apple had $2.138B in cash and $2.00B in short term investments at the time. I guess it's a matter of how you define "huge". To me $2B in cash is pretty substantial even these days.

If you read Apple's earnings reports (particularly "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations "), "revenue recognized from iPhone sales, carrier agreements, services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPhone accessories" is like ten times as much as "sales from the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore in addition to sales of iPod services and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories."

It seems the vast majority of their profits comes from selling people 500 dollar phones for 200 and billing AT&T (and now Verizon) the difference.

On a whim, I grabbed the latest SEC 10-Q for Stillwater Mining (a random NYSE listed company with mining in the title) from Edgar: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7231384-7767-169530&type=sect&dcn=0000950123-10-044558 For the last quarter: Revenue: 95,199,000 General & Administrative: 6,421,000 Total operating costs for mining*: 38,741,000 Employee count: 1273 Mining employee salaries are paid out of mining operating costs, CxO compensation comes out of G&A. Let's assume that all 6% of the G&A is CxO compensation. For your assertion to be correct, employees must make no more than $8700/year. *Excludes depreciation on mining equipment.

It's worth noting here that Armstrong had to disclose his holdings in Thiokol Corp as a condition of becoming a director. According to this 1999 filing, Neil Armstrong had 1100 shares "beneficially owned". That's after nine years as a director (he started in 1989).

3x does seem a bit high.

Since I just cleaned out about 300 viagra spams, let's look at Pfizer's most recent 10-Q?

In the last 3 months, they spent $3.35 billion on marketing(which doesn't include things like writing fake articles for medical journals and letting people know about off-label uses, but I'll let that slide if you'll give me "administration expenses"), and spent $1.695 billion on R&D.

That's about 1.97 times the $$ on convincing people to buy their drugs than they do finding new drugs.

You miss the point - delivering the Internet to conumers is only profitable for a company if they are a near-monopoly. Having a couple of customers here, a couple there doesn't work - there are labor-intensive resources that are tied to geography. Like fixing wires when they break.

Wow, you pulled all that out of the AC's post? You can definitely read more between the lines than I can.

Anyhow, the facts disagree with your belief that a monopoly is required to be profitable. I'm not surprised by this as you are among the majority who have either lost faith in free market and competition or never believed in it in the first place.

In reviewing the latest 10Q SEC filing for Comcast and AT&T, two opponents of net neutrality who arguably are engaged in a competitive market for broadband internet, they are making a tidy profit on their internet operations.

Comcast had an operating income of $1.7 billion after expenses, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $8 billion for their cable segment for the last 3 months.

AT&T had an operating income of $2.7 billion after expenses, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $17 billion for their wireline segment for the last 3 months.

And so the battle goes on and on. Each side offering better numbers (speeds, etc.) and lower prices - utterly unsustainable prices that make no sense but designed to capture market share. Once the competition is eliminated prices can return to that which actually pays for the service, but not until.

Welcome to the free market where ROI includes risk. It is sustainable and works for many other industries. Take a close look at electronics manufacturers, probably the most cut throat competitive industry around. Electronics manufacturers compete, some win some fail, the market continues and consumers get awesome products at great prices. When competitors lower their prices below sustainable levels in an attempt to gain market share and drive competitors out of business they are breaking the law, very much like breaking the law when competitors scheme to fix prices or use other illegal tactics to build or maintain monopoly positions so they can gouge consumers.

Another side effect of this is the consumer isn't paying for access

See the SEC reports, consumers are paying, providers are profiting. Reality trumps theory.

especially when you can get a DSL connection for $14.95 a month

That would be awesome! :) Unfortunately you picked the minimum data point for broadband access with nothing to explain exactly what you get for $14.95, the truth is that average broadband access rates are $53.06/month in the United States.

Think people are comfortable with the idea that the current ISPs are running at a loss and just hanging on with the hope of driving everyone else out?

Please, read some of the financial statements for the corporations who are fighting net neutrality and who want to tax other companies who profit by providing valuable services over the network the ISP is already profiting from.

You miss the point - delivering the Internet to conumers is only profitable for a company if they are a near-monopoly. Having a couple of customers here, a couple there doesn't work - there are labor-intensive resources that are tied to geography. Like fixing wires when they break.

Wow, you pulled all that out of the AC's post? You can definitely read more between the lines than I can.

Anyhow, the facts disagree with your belief that a monopoly is required to be profitable. I'm not surprised by this as you are among the majority who have either lost faith in free market and competition or never believed in it in the first place.

In reviewing the latest 10Q SEC filing for Comcast and AT&T, two opponents of net neutrality who arguably are engaged in a competitive market for broadband internet, they are making a tidy profit on their internet operations.

Comcast had an operating income of $1.7 billion after expenses, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $8 billion for their cable segment for the last 3 months.

AT&T had an operating income of $2.7 billion after expenses, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $17 billion for their wireline segment for the last 3 months.

And so the battle goes on and on. Each side offering better numbers (speeds, etc.) and lower prices - utterly unsustainable prices that make no sense but designed to capture market share. Once the competition is eliminated prices can return to that which actually pays for the service, but not until.

Welcome to the free market where ROI includes risk. It is sustainable and works for many other industries. Take a close look at electronics manufacturers, probably the most cut throat competitive industry around. Electronics manufacturers compete, some win some fail, the market continues and consumers get awesome products at great prices. When competitors lower their prices below sustainable levels in an attempt to gain market share and drive competitors out of business they are breaking the law, very much like breaking the law when competitors scheme to fix prices or use other illegal tactics to build or maintain monopoly positions so they can gouge consumers.

Another side effect of this is the consumer isn't paying for access

See the SEC reports, consumers are paying, providers are profiting. Reality trumps theory.

especially when you can get a DSL connection for $14.95 a month

That would be awesome! :) Unfortunately you picked the minimum data point for broadband access with nothing to explain exactly what you get for $14.95, the truth is that average broadband access rates are $53.06/month in the United States.

Think people are comfortable with the idea that the current ISPs are running at a loss and just hanging on with the hope of driving everyone else out?

Please, read some of the financial statements for the corporations who are fighting net neutrality and who want to tax other companies who profit by providing valuable services over the network the ISP is already profiting from.

3. Apple doesn't disclose internal costs like R&D.

Huh? It's right in their 10-Q under Operating Expenses.

This indicates a gross profit (pre-tax, etc) of approximately $52M for the preceeding nine months. Now, those numbers are obviously cooked a bit; net profits after everything is deducted appear to be around $8M (3.1%) for the same period, call it $12M/year, roughly. That's after paying salaries, bonuses, etc.

Personally, I'd just cut the co-lo's pipes :P

Then we can start getting the buggers through the courts.

There is absolutely no way that a DDOS on this scale, where the source can be identified, can be accepted as legal.

What got me was the quote from the FBI source that this was a 'legal gray area'.

Intentional sabotage of a service? How the hell is that 'gray'?

Your reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not.

In what way is my conclusion wrong?

Another interesting item to note is the spying they (have been | are | will be) doing.

Yea, have you seen the new ads on TV lately about how whoever says the senate passed a bill to "renew" a spying law but that the house of reps went on vacation? Part of the bill the senate passed gives the telecoms a get out of jail free card. I can't help but say when it says the law is needed "prove it". Of course nobody can prove it's needed.

Yet another item of interest would be that the iPhone that everyone seems to be slobbering over is sold only with a 2-year AT&T service contract.

I can buy a naked iPhone. I can go down to one of the Apple stores in the area, there's 3 I've been to that are at most 20 minutes drive, and buy an iPhone without getting ATT service. Of course why would I buy an expensive brick? I don't even have an iPod, all I've got from Apple are 3 Macs, 2 old Macs and the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. One of the old Macs is about 20 years old and the other about 10.

These people are bad, just like every other major corporate player in this hemisphere. I am sorry, Falcon, but you cannot defend them any longer.

Defend whom?

My initial point could bear restatement, I believe. It is as follows:
AT&T owns the North American communication lines.

ATT owns some but not all of the backbones. Qwest owns some as well as does or did GTE, MCI, and Worldcom. Google owns a lot of dark fiber as well, and is partnering with some other companies to lay more fiber between California and Japan. Broadwing Communications Inc owns almost 10,000 miles of fiber, and Qwest owns "888,000 fiber miles across the United States".

In addition, I would like to thank jc42 for a well thought out, insightful post, over here. It comprises a much better rebuttal of your fallacious arguments than this one you are reading right now. I recommend you read that one after this, and rethink your conclusions.

First, and again, what conclusion? Next, what "fallacious arguments" do I make? I think it's you who needs to work on reading comprehension.

We have adopted a stockholder rights plan. The power given to the Board of Directors by the stockholder rights plan may make it more difficult for a change of control of our company to occur or for our company to be acquired if the acquisition is opposed by our Board of Directors.

Our Board of Directors currently has the right, with respect to the 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock, to authorize the issuance of one or more additional series of our preferred stock with such voting, dividend and other rights as our directors determine. The Board of Directors can designate new series of preferred stock without the approval of the holders of our common stock. The rights of holders of our common stock may be adversely affected by the rights of any holders of additional shares of preferred stock that may be issued in the future, including without limitation, further dilution of the equity ownership percentage of our holders of common stock and their voting power if we issue preferred stock with voting rights. Additionally, the issuance of preferred stock could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock.

We have adopted a stockholder rights plan. The power given to the Board of Directors by the stockholder rights plan may make it more difficult for a change of control of our company to occur or for our company to be acquired if the acquisition is opposed by our Board of Directors.

Our Board of Directors currently has the right, with respect to the 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock, to authorize the issuance of one or more additional series of our preferred stock with such voting, dividend and other rights as our directors determine. The Board of Directors can designate new series of preferred stock without the approval of the holders of our common stock. The rights of holders of our common stock may be adversely affected by the rights of any holders of additional shares of preferred stock that may be issued in the future, including without limitation, further dilution of the equity ownership percentage of our holders of common stock and their voting power if we issue preferred stock with voting rights. Additionally, the issuance of preferred stock could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock.

"Open Source" Software and Failure to Comply with Open Source Licenses and Obligations Could Negatively Affect our Business.

To the extent we utilize "open source" software we face risks. For example, the scope and requirements of the most common open source software license, the GNU General Public License, or GPL, have not been interpreted in a court of law. Use of GPL or other open source software could subject certain portions of our proprietary software to the GPL requirements or other similar requirements, as applicable, which may have adverse effects on our sale of the products incorporating any such software. Other forms of open source software licensing present license compliance risks, which could result in litigation or loss of the right to use this software, our ability to commercialize products or technologies incorporating open source software or otherwise fully realize the anticipated benefits of any such acquisition may be restricted because, among other reasons, open source license terms may be ambiguous and may result in unanticipated or uncertain obligations regarding our products. It may be difficult for us to accurately determine the developers of the open source code and whether the acquired software infringes third-party intellectual property rights. We have in place processes and controls designed to address these risks and concerns, including a review process for screening requests from our development organizations for the use of open source, but we cannot be sure that all open source is submitted for approval prior to use in our products.

According to Google Finance, there are 21.48 million shares of SCO stock ( http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=SCOX ).

As I post this, SCOXQ.PK is selling for 10 cents per share ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOXQ.PK ).

$0.10 * 21.48 million = $2.148 million. Who has an extra $2.2 million lying around to buy all of the shares of SCO? ;-) (Putting aside all questions as to why someone would *want* to.)

Interestingly, the market cap on SCO is being reported by Yahoo Finance as 1.80M. This seems to indicate to me that the stock might drop down to 8 cents per share.

Also interesting, apparently last year Darl acquired 100,000 copies of SCOX ( http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4771077&Type=HTML ) at $2.30 per share. Assuming he still has them (I didn't see any sale documents), they've gone from being worth $230,000 to being worth $10,000. Way to grow that fortune, Darl! ;-)

$7.1 billion,/a> or so cash and cash equivalents, another $6.6 billion in short-term investments, 1.4 in accounts receivable.

If you want numbers, go get them. They're a public company, and their numbers (at the end of each quarter anyway) are therefore public record.

Adobe, OTOH, has less than $600 million in cash and not quite $1.4 billion in short-term investments, and $5.667 billion in total assets.

It seems to me that if Apple was desperate enough to buy Adobe, it could probably cut a check. Why it'd want to is beyond me, though.

Isn't Apple hurting enough for system sales due to lack of third-party developers? When you're building a platform, after-market products mean a great deal. Adobe is one of the shining examples of third-party development on Apple's systems. Why would Apple want to make all the things Adobe adds to their software stack more stuff to market as a vertical internal to their product catalog? Wouldn't that reinforce the "only if Apple sees fit will your software needs be met" syndrome?

$7.1 billion,/a> or so cash and cash equivalents, another $6.6 billion in short-term investments, 1.4 in accounts receivable.

If you want numbers, go get them. They're a public company, and their numbers (at the end of each quarter anyway) are therefore public record.

Adobe, OTOH, has less than $600 million in cash and not quite $1.4 billion in short-term investments, and $5.667 billion in total assets.

It seems to me that if Apple was desperate enough to buy Adobe, it could probably cut a check. Why it'd want to is beyond me, though.

Isn't Apple hurting enough for system sales due to lack of third-party developers? When you're building a platform, after-market products mean a great deal. Adobe is one of the shining examples of third-party development on Apple's systems. Why would Apple want to make all the things Adobe adds to their software stack more stuff to market as a vertical internal to their product catalog? Wouldn't that reinforce the "only if Apple sees fit will your software needs be met" syndrome?

According to RealNetworks' latest SEC filing, their music subscriber numbers have grown in each of the last six quarters:

http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=5501757&Type=HTML

Real's Rhapsody has more songs than Napster, and you can even listen to streams on Linux and OS X with a Firefox plugin. It generally works well on Linux, except for that I've run into some issues getting it working on 64-bit Firefox.

Acacia = "InterActive Group" = "Arrowhead Research" (= Msft?)

"On May 29, 2007, we [Arrowhead Research] sold to certain institutional and accredited investors an aggregate of 2,849,446 shares of common stock (the "Private Placement Shares") at a per share purchase price of $5.78, and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 712,363 shares of common stock (the "Warrant Shares"), exercisable at $7.06 per share, in the Private Placement. Two investment vehicles of York Capital Management, a stockholder holding greater than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, participated in the offering."

http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u4d4r.htm

"Arrowhead Research" refers to Arrowhead Research Corporation, a Delaware corporation and formerly known as InterActive Group, Inc."

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/symbols.asp?exchange=NGM&start=A&sort=cap&Type=0

"The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Arrowhead Research Corporation (a Delaware Corporation), formally InterActive Group, Inc., and Arrowhead Research Corporation (a California Corporation), a wholly-owned subsidiary. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
. . . .
In October 2003, in connection with an initial private placement of Common Stock, the Company [Arrowhead Research] accepted 80,255 shares of Acacia Research Corporation, valued at $500,000, and $500,000 cash in exchange for 1,000,000 units. The shares are carried on the financial statements as marketable securities. See Note 3."

http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/05/17/0001015402-04-002107/Section7.asp

"On May 29, 2007, we [Arrowhead Research] sold to certain institutional and accredited investors an aggregate of 2,849,446 shares of common stock (the "Private Placement Shares") at a per share purchase price of $5.78, and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 712,363 shares of common stock (the "Warrant Shares"), exercisable at $7.06 per share, in the Private Placement. Two investment vehicles of York Capital Management, a stockholder holding greater than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, participated in the offering."

http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u4d4r.htm

I'm pretty sure their European patent (granted in 2004) is used as a basis by the description. That patent # is 1171813 (I got my info off this site

From the description it appears to be the same, at least, and it does pretty much describe a form of autocomplete (when a list of choices is displayed not a single choice). I don't know if it requires some form of activity to show the choices, but this sounds a like pressing cont-D after set filec in the csh (tcsh, zsh and bash use tab completion, but filec is much older) as applied to just about any device (like the described pointer pointing at a character).

It's Zonk-atorializing in action.

EDD revenue increased primarily due to increased Xbox 360 console sales, Zune sales, and increased Xbox accessories and video game sales. We shipped 6.6 million Xbox 360 consoles during fiscal year 2007 as compared to 5.0 million consoles during fiscal year 2006. Xbox and PC game revenue increased $650 million or 19% as a result of the increased number of Xbox 360 platform sales, partially offset by decreased sales of the first generation Xbox console and related accessories and video games. Zune, consumer hardware and software, and TV platforms revenue increased $539 million or 65%. Mobile and Embedded Devices revenue increased $138 million or 28% driven by sales growth in Windows Mobile software and Windows Embedded operating systems.

• Sales revenue: 22,636.0

• Manufacturing costs: 6,001.1
• Marketing & adminstrative costs: 8,165.4
• R&D: 4,782.9

They may be praying that Microsoft will buy them. They appear to be in the process of imploding.

Their last 10-K contained a couple of zingers.

"As of the date of the filing of this Report, the Company does not have sufficient funds available to fund its operations, invest in additional resources for growth and repay its debt obligations. Therefore, the Company needs to raise additional funds through selling securities, obtaining loans or increase sales. The Company's inability to raise such funds or renegotiate the terms of its existing debt will significantly jeopardize its ability to continue operations."

"The Company has incurred significant losses from operations for the year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, the Company had a working capital deficit of approximately $10.3 million at December 31, 2006. The foregoing raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans include seeking additional capital and/or debt financing. There is no guarantee that additional capital and/or debt financing will be available when and to the extent required, or that if available, it will be on terms acceptable to the Company. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Our auditors have included a going-concern paragraph to their audit report."

The entire 10-K makes for interesting reading.

See http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFra meset.aspx?FilingID=5107317&Type=HTML for more information.

AT&T had $233M in R&D in 2006, according to their claim to the SEC. I noticed that no telecom companies were listed, or any serious-router manufacturers (Cisco spent $4.1B in 2006 R&D, for instance, as documented here.

Shoddy article.

AT&T had $233M in R&D in 2006, according to their claim to the SEC. I noticed that no telecom companies were listed, or any serious-router manufacturers (Cisco spent $4.1B in 2006 R&D, for instance, as documented here.

Shoddy article.

IBM is winning because IBM sell hardware

Hate to burst your bubble, but IBM only makes a bit more on hardware than it does on software. IBM is winning because they sell services. Have a look at their 10-Q

In millions:
Hardware: 5,583
Software: 4,406
Services: 12,017

I don't mean to be a troll. I swear. But who thinks here that buying youtube, a company with a net profit of 0 was worth 1.65 billions? It may pay off, in the very long term. I'm willing to yield that. And I'll go as far as to say that doubleclick is a much, much better fit for google, it's an advertising company. However, the question we should ask now is, how profitable is doubleclick? It's not publicly traded anymore, so recent numbers are hard to come by (or at least they are hard to come by for me, feel free to correct me here). The best information I could find was their 2004 Q1 earnings report, at http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/05/10/0000950123- 04-006076/Section7.asp. Their net earning for that period, if I read the document correctly, were 7.693 millions. That's not a huge profit, even if you multiply it by 4 to get a rough yearly earning. Unless their business has grown a LOT, it's unlikely to be worth 2 billions, especially if "parts of the company having already been sold off". Of course, they may not buy it at all, and this whole comment will be moot. However, if they do buy doubleclick, and if it hasn't grown has not grown a whole lot more profitable since 2004, I really think that these acquisitions of dubious value may will bring google stock way down from it's current value.

wow. well, maybe you can help me out here....

now these are just rough numbers from their balance sheet. maybe you can come up with a way to say it without accidentally using negative percentages(which are completely valid in the world of finance, though I guess you live in a world where you haven't ever seen them used)...

Windows division : gross REVENUE(not income) - costs of the division : 10 billion dollars
Office division: Gross revenue - costs of the division: 9.6 Billion dollars
Server and Tools division: 3 Billion dollars
Entertainment: 1.3 billion
Corporate level activity : -5 Billion
Total Operating income: 16.5 billion

So, what percent of the company's total operating income do the windows division and office division create?

btw: definition of operating income: is revenue less cost of goods sold and related operating expenses that are applied to the day-to-day operating activities of the company. It excludes financial related items (i.e., interest income, dividend income, and interest expense), extraordinary items, and taxes.

but, after you get done telling me what percent they make, I'd love to hear where you heard the BS that you can't have negative percentages. my handy wikipedia says any dimensionless proportionality can be expressed as a percent.

oh, also for your reading so maybe you don't have to argue the definition of a percent(incorrectly) when learning about the breakdown of a company:

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFra meset.aspx?dcn=0001193125-06-180008&Type=HTML

also, if you think bigger than infinity has no meaning, check out c and aleph naught. it is a rigorously defined concept.

According to Google, SCOX is will open today at $1.00/share. According to Caldera Systems's certificate of incorporation, their stock has a par value of $.001 par value, so their market price is still 1000 times their par value.

Whether or not SCO survives, anyone taking a paycheck from them has already made their cash.

Sales up profits down?

Unfortunately, you've got it backwards. Microsoft has said that they're not going to enforce those patents. On the other hand, VA Software (the owner of Slashdot) has said publically that they will aggressively prosecute people who violate their patents.

Pretty sneaky, huh? Maybe you (and the other lemmings in your group) should try to do some reading once in a while. Your knees have got to be getting tired from all of that jerking.

Legal Matters

Certain companies have filed trademark infringement and related claims against us over the display of ads in response to user queries that include trademark terms. The outcomes of these lawsuits have differed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Courts in France have held us liable for allowing advertisers to select certain trademarked terms as keywords. We are appealing those decisions. We were also subject to two lawsuits in Germany on similar matters where the courts held that we are not liable for the actions of our advertisers prior to notification of trademark rights. We are litigating or recently have litigated similar issues in other cases in the U.S., France, Germany, Italy, Israel and Austria. Adverse results in these lawsuits may result in, or even compel, a change in this practice which could result in a loss of revenue for us, which could harm our business.

Certain entities have also filed copyright claims against us, alleging that features of certain of our products, including Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search, and Google Book Search, infringe their rights. In addition, our planned acquisition of YouTube may also subject us to additional copyright claims upon the closing of the transaction. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of damages and may also result in, or even compel, a change in our business practices, which could result in a loss of revenue for us or otherwise harm our business.

From time to time, we may also become a party to other litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business, including intellectual property claims (in addition to the trademark and copyright matters noted above), labor and employment claims, breach of contract claims, tax and other matters. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome of the matters discussed above will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Cripes, you can buy game developers cheap. Check out this quote from the 10-Q
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFra meset.aspx?dcn=0001125282-06-003343&Type=HTML

In November 2005, the Company acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of Firaxis Games, Inc. ("Firaxis"), a developer of PC and strategy titles, including the Civilization franchise. The purchase price of approximately $15,442 consisted of $12,500 of unregistered common stock and $4,085 of development advances previously paid to Firaxis reduced by net cash acquired of $1,143.

In June 2005, the Company acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of Gaia Capital Group and its wholly-owned subsidiaries ("Gaia"), the developers of certain of the Company's titles for console and handheld platforms. The purchase price consisted of $5,748 in cash, $4,055 of development advances previously paid to Gaia and deferred consideration of $1,597.

In January 2005, the Company acquired from SEGA all of the outstanding capital stock of Visual Concepts Entertainment and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kush Games, the developers of certain of the Company's sports titles, and certain intellectual property rights associated with these products. The purchase price consisted of $27,794 in cash, $1,866 of prepaid royalties previously advanced to SEGA and contingent consideration of $2,593 based on the release of certain titles.

Shit - anyone know of any other game companies for sale at firesale prices?

I'm thinking, 'WTF happened? http://www.edgar-online.com/' is about financial stuff...'

Oh, Edge Online. Got it. First day, new eyes.

On topic, this sounds kinda cool. What they need is a Joe Satriani endorsement. Or, maybe a David-St.-Hubbins-trying-to-be-Joe-Satriani endorsement, like a "Satch Tapes" outtake. That would be teh junk.

Microsoft announced that Office 98 Macintosh Edition would begin shipping later this month--months ahead of their Windows version. This version of Office offers Macintosh users advanced functionality, such as self-repairing applications, not currently available to Windows users.

IBM is still International Business Machines. In fact, they file their yearly financial statements with the SEC as International Business Machines. What do you think IBM stands for these days?

Bad example, as Maytag wants to share their profits - all their profits - with Whirlpool.

(Your point still stands, of course, unless Apple accepts a buyout offer from one of the big media corporations.)

Straight out of the 10Q "Xbox consoles have negative gross margins." An additional thing you forgot is that MS slashed the price of the XBox. It is more than likely that any efficiencies they made in manufacturing the consoles could not make up for nearly halving the price. As you have not provided a cite to back up your claims I consider myself done with this.

Home and Entertainment

Operating loss 2002 1.135 billion

Operating loss 2003 1.191 billion

Operating loss 2004 1.215 billion

So which one of these years is XBox making a profit in?

You are correct, the new XBox should be expected to do better, since the original version bled the company for over a billion dollars a year, so far. Really, selling a block of cheese with a DVD tray couldn't do worse.

Love your reply, you have shown that you a) can not read a complex statement b)can not support any facts in your arguments.

Good one.

I'm not 100% certain, but I *think* Apple sells software, too.

I'm not certain either, but according to this (Page 27)... Software represents about (in thousands) $134 of $3,243 in net sales. I'm not one of these financial market types, but I've got a calculator and it seems that software represents about 4% of their income.

Not much of a software company if you ask me.

http://xbrl.edgar-online.com/x/resources/sfarticle .asp

"Looking at Business Reports Through XBRL-Tinted Glasses
By Liv A. Watson; Brian L. McGuire, CMA, CPA; and Eric E. Cohen, CPA

XBRL is the bridge for communicating financial information easily, quickly, and efficiently. "

Something to keep in mind. What good is all the "disclosed" information, if you have to type it all back in?

I was curious, so I looked up the 10-Q for Apple in summer of 1997..

Even though they were struggling (year over year), they still had over $1 billion in cash assets, $212 in short term investments, $1.2 billion in A/R .. this compared to around $1.9 billion total current liabilities.

Granted, compared to the latest 10-Q you can see they are definitely more financial secure right now.. but at the time, I don't think they necessarily needed the cash infusion to stay afloat -- they still had quite a bit of flex room.

I was curious, so I looked up the 10-Q for Apple in summer of 1997..

Even though they were struggling (year over year), they still had over $1 billion in cash assets, $212 in short term investments, $1.2 billion in A/R .. this compared to around $1.9 billion total current liabilities.

Granted, compared to the latest 10-Q you can see they are definitely more financial secure right now.. but at the time, I don't think they necessarily needed the cash infusion to stay afloat -- they still had quite a bit of flex room.