Slashdot Mirror

Here's their sec filing if you want to look for it yourself:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1468516/000119312510245249/d10q.htm

This was discussed on reddit very recently:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/f71tv/that_post_about_how_80_of_aols_revenue_comes_from/

They were very critical there of an earlier story that was upvoted quickly but which was apparently well wide of the mark.
I suspect this sensationalist headline will be too - feel free to check.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1468516/000119312510245249/d10q.htm Page 10.

Facebook has five hundred million users. Is each user really worth a hundred dollars?

I'm not a businessman but I'm not so sure this is the correct way to think about this.

Everything depends on how much the market is penetrated for social in two ways: users and advertisers. Can they grow that revenue/profit? And if so, to what point? If Zuckerberg sneaks it into China then I think you're looking at a potential to increase that significantly. Facebook hosts its statistics so you can guess if it's got a half billion in revenue yearly at half a billion users and it scales perfectly, that's a dollar per year per user. Can it get up to a billion users? It's probably clear that in the long run as the younger generation matures, that penetration will slowly expand ... but there's no guarantee that Facebook remains the de facto standard that far out. You need to consider future growth.

The other factor, advertisers and game publishers, could also be troublesome. Is this a "Honeymoon Period" for advertisers where they're paying an unsustainable amount to Facebook for the time being just to gain exposure? Could the above assumptions about scaling with userbase actually be false if advertisers aren't willing to spend more than they are now once more users join?

Consider that these numbers put Facebook's Net Profit Margin at almost 30%. That's very high for the industry. They're in the same region as Google and Microsoft but as I stated above can it scale?

One last thing, you seem to think that Facebook's worth is only its users. They are also a large company with almost two thousand employees and are building infrastructure. Include that on your assets sheet.

Facebook is going public soon. What are the chances that this 'leaked' report is designed to pump up the stock, and therefore Goldman's profit?

I think the SEC would come down pretty hard on GS if they did that -- they have before for less. Misleading investors is very serious.

Umm you even read the news? Does everyone forget about what they did or is it just lack of caring to read up and educate yourselves? There is plenty more where this came from

"...[the SEC] charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter"...that sounds like robbing and defrauding their customers...

Hard to tell which patents are included in the purchase.

The most detailed document is the 8-K filing but it doesn't list the patents

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000119312510266513/d8ka.htm

So they'll have to do it by proxy then, just like when they funded SCO by buying a massive license which they actually already had anyway:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903023055/a03-4160_18k.htm
Now that it's patents instead of copyrights, maybe they can use the help of former Microsoft execs that work in intellectual property litigation field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Assets.
I think Software patents must go, or you'll see stickers saying "not licensed for sale or use in USA or Japan" in a while.

Looks like it is patents only:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000119312510265964/d8k.htm

Here's a link to the actual SEC 8K: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000119312510265964/d8k.htm

This site was established as a personal blog for whatever shit Rob Malda (CmdrTaco) found interesting or relevant. The fact that it's mostly technology stuff is purely because Rob Malda is a nerd, like most of the rest of us. But that doesn't mean it all has to be technical stuff.

Whatever Rob Malda's intentions were when he started this site nearly 14 years ago is of little relevance now. Rob doesn't own the site. Geek.net is the owner and it is managed by these people. Since Geek.net is a public company we can see exactly what they think Slashdot's purpose is. I quote from their latest annual report filing:

Slashdot serves technology professionals and technology enthusiasts with timely, peer-produced and peer-moderated technology news and discussion. Slashdot's lively and robust on-line conversations and interactions leverage its innovative comment and moderation system. Slashdot served 3.8 million unique visitors in December 2009.

That is what the owners and managers of Slashdot say the purpose of Slashdot is.

Legal stupidity is interesting and relevant to all of us, because you never know when this brain rot is going to affect you directly, through no fault of your own. Just because it's not a case involving computers doesn't mean a thing.

I know what you are saying, but there is enough legal craziness to fill a web site all on its own. I think it's important that we pick the stories that would be relevant to us, not just those that are sensationalist. For example, look at the original story. It gives a broad overview and that's it. There's no investigation and no discussion of the judges decision or why he or she might have ruled they way that they did. It's just newspaper filler.

Where a site like Slashdot could easily add value is to look up the case in PACER, preferably using a tool like RECAP for Firefox so that the public documents are then automatically uploaded to the Internet Archive. That would make the court documents available to everyone for free enabling all of us to read the judge's decision and rational as well as see what case law was cited for the decision.

The discussions on Slashdot are one of the site's strengths. Having this little extra bit of information would allow us to examine the real story behind this case and have a meaningful discussion about it. There are several practicing lawyers that post on Slashdot and they may be able to offer insight into the case. Instead, we can only argue about it from a position of ignorance and supposition. I don't get much value out of that, and so I and others complain. We complain because we care. We like Slashdot and want to see it improve. If the Slashdot team were willing to add this extra value then it's something I would gladly pay for.

The device shown has the FCC ID number "O9EQ2438F-M" on the outside of the box, as required by law. FCC ID numbers can be looked up in the FCC database, where details of the device and pictures of the electronics are available. It's a cell phone module, of course. The FCC was told it was for "stolen currency tracking". The maker was Wavecom, since acquired by Sierra Wireless. The unit dates from 2005.

That's just a standard RF module. That application covers the addition of a spread-spectrum module to upgrade the cell access to support PCS networks. The base device, according to the FCC application, is FCC ID NBI-MTAG216. This is more interesting. It's a "Trac Pak V", from "Spectrum Management LLC" of Carrolton, TX.

When the spread-spectrum module was added, the company issued a press release about it. "Spectrum Management, L.L.C., a global provider of innovative physical and electronic security products which include its proprietary asset tracking and management systems, announced today the completion of its TracPac CS Tag and the development of an all-new web-based tracking and location system. Spectrum has combined technologies with Wavecom, a leading provider of pre-packaged wireless communications solutions for automotive, industrial and mobile professional applications, with a wide range of fully integrated modules and modems. The new Tag design pairs Wavecom's Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) module with GPSOne, and Spectrum's proprietary VHF homing technology to provide a wide range of Location Based Services (LBS). Spectrum Management expects to offer similar tracking and location services on Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications by simply substituting Wavecom's plug-in compatible GSM module."

Spectrum Management's predecessor company was ProNet, which was a public company in the 1990s. They were acquired by Metrocall, and the tracking business was split off as Electronic Tracking Systems. They started as a pager company, but branched out into tracking devices. From their SEC filing: "In 1988, the Company began to apply advanced wireless technology to the security business by marketing radio-activated electronic tracking systems to financial institutions. At December 31, 1996, the Company's security systems consisted of 29,501 miniature radio transmitters, or "TracPacs," in service." Most of these were leased to banks, and attached to items of value or hidden in bundles of currency. The 1990s model was a pre-GPS technology; they had to get local cops to install receivers (like LoJack does) for this to work. So it only worked in a few markets, and they were having trouble expanding, from their SEC filings. The newer technology doesn't have that limitation.

So it's a stock piece of law enforcement equipment, circa 2005.

The device shown has the FCC ID number "O9EQ2438F-M" on the outside of the box, as required by law. FCC ID numbers can be looked up in the FCC database, where details of the device and pictures of the electronics are available. It's a cell phone module, of course. The FCC was told it was for "stolen currency tracking". The maker was Wavecom, since acquired by Sierra Wireless. The unit dates from 2005.

That's just a standard RF module. That application covers the addition of a spread-spectrum module to upgrade the cell access to support PCS networks. The base device, according to the FCC application, is FCC ID NBI-MTAG216. This is more interesting. It's a "Trac Pak V", from "Spectrum Management LLC" of Carrolton, TX.

When the spread-spectrum module was added, the company issued a press release about it. "Spectrum Management, L.L.C., a global provider of innovative physical and electronic security products which include its proprietary asset tracking and management systems, announced today the completion of its TracPac CS Tag and the development of an all-new web-based tracking and location system. Spectrum has combined technologies with Wavecom, a leading provider of pre-packaged wireless communications solutions for automotive, industrial and mobile professional applications, with a wide range of fully integrated modules and modems. The new Tag design pairs Wavecom's Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) module with GPSOne, and Spectrum's proprietary VHF homing technology to provide a wide range of Location Based Services (LBS). Spectrum Management expects to offer similar tracking and location services on Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications by simply substituting Wavecom's plug-in compatible GSM module."

Spectrum Management's predecessor company was ProNet, which was a public company in the 1990s. They were acquired by Metrocall, and the tracking business was split off as Electronic Tracking Systems. They started as a pager company, but branched out into tracking devices. From their SEC filing: "In 1988, the Company began to apply advanced wireless technology to the security business by marketing radio-activated electronic tracking systems to financial institutions. At December 31, 1996, the Company's security systems consisted of 29,501 miniature radio transmitters, or "TracPacs," in service." Most of these were leased to banks, and attached to items of value or hidden in bundles of currency. The 1990s model was a pre-GPS technology; they had to get local cops to install receivers (like LoJack does) for this to work. So it only worked in a few markets, and they were having trouble expanding, from their SEC filings. The newer technology doesn't have that limitation.

So it's a stock piece of law enforcement equipment, circa 2005.

I'm glad it works for you, but I have trouble trusting a tax preparation firm that screws up its own taxes over multiple years.

If a party arose that pledged as part of its platform to abolish the IRS and fundamentally reform government, getting us off the speeding train wreck financial course we're on presently, wouldn't such a party do really well electorally? Why hasn't any party to date come up with a clear message to that effect? OR am I deluding myself by thinking that Americans still want to enjoy the fruits of liberty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milken

Milken was indicted on 98 counts ... as the result of an insider trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading investigation.

and meet Martha Stewart's stockbroker http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm (not allegedly)

The scenario you described is called "insider trading" and, likely because it is illegal, when you find a stockbrocker who *is* willing to go for the arrangement they often insist on keeping quite a bit more than 75% of the profits.

Just like picking between cellular providers or big banks. Unregulated markets tend to function more like a cartel than a true open market. Limiting choices and competition instead of enhancing it.

I love how the two examples you picked to illustrate the evils of a totally-free market are two of the heavily regulated industries in the nation.

See that's the thing about regulation: it doesn't necessarily help people.* Sometimes, it just raises the barrier of entry to market so high that only a few large, select companies can afford to exist. As you are no doubt aware, it is precisely such a scenario -- a market with only a few massive "competitors" -- that leads to problems.

If the communications market were *truely* free, you'd see scads of small, local GSM-based mobile data providers, innumerable independent OTA broadcasts, etc. As it is now, spectrum licensing fees are so high that "mom and pop" wireless is basically impossible. It's no better when it comes to landlines. AT&T and friends get all sorts of concessions by state and local governments that, were you to ask for the same treatment, would simply get you laughed out of your representative's office.

* Although in many cases it does.

The SEC doesn't stop fraud because it doesn't want to stop it, not because it lacks the resources.

Exactly. For those who are not convinced, a bit of reading: Five New York Stock Exchange specialists were actually charged with fraud, but it's not the justice you think it should be. Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.

To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The DOJ finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the SEC/DOJ.

If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC and DOJ, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but they did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:

"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"

Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.

Some NYSE specialists were charged with fraud: Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.

To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The SEC and Department of Justice finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the DOJ.

If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but the DOJ did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:

"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"

Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.

Then you are, as PT Barnum put it, a sucker.

How did P. T. Barnum put it? And how is that relevant? Sounds to me like a throwaway comment in an attempt to sound clever.

Allowing insider trading will only beget insiders making a profit at the expense of everyone else. And the likelihood of you being a "true" insider (i.e., of the "secret club") means you will get screwed repeatedly. You admit being screwed by insider trading once. Do you think you will get screwed less often if it is legalized?

To answer your last question, I think the criminalization of insider trading (which incidentally isn't universally criminalized) has not reduced my odds of getting screwed. A wise person recognizes that such things happen anyway and acts accordingly.

I put it to you that you'd have to buy K-Y lube in 55 gallon drums.

Strangely, I haven't needed to do that.

No, there would be local markets. The "local market" for the US is the NYSE, NASDAQ, Chicago, etc. Saying that the speed of light should be a factor in setting trades is stupid. A 15ms (amount of time it takes for light to go from California to Maine) "delay" as a solution is not outrageous. Saying that people deserve to lose out on trades because they don't live within the Tri-State area of NY,NJ,and CT, is.

I disagree. There's no reason for a California HFT especially if it means putting in artificial delays in the market. Next.

Are you seriously trying to say that "real traders" (for lack of a better definition) didn't get hosed by the HFT induced crash?

Only a bunch of traders using stop orders got hosed. That's dumb trading. And you don't know that the crash was HFT-induced.

Moving on, there is the appearance of a cascade failure in the market. For example, from the SEC report, linked in the article:

Economic evidence from the futures markets is also consistent with the conclusion that a liquidity drain likely played a role in the dramatic and sudden movements in the price of stock index futures. As noted above, preliminary data indicates that, although trading volume in E-mini S&P 500 futures was very high on May 6, there were many more sell orders than there were buy orders from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. The data also indicate that the bid ask spread widened significantly at or about 2:45 p.m. and that certain active traders partially withdrew from the market.

Starting at 2:45:28 p.m., CME's Globex stop logic functionality initiated a brief pause in trading in the E-mini S&P 500 futures. This functionality is initiated when the last transaction price would have triggered a series of stop loss orders that, if executed, would have resulted in a cascade in prices outside a predetermined 'no bust' range (6 points in either direction in the case of the E-mini). The purpose of this functionality is to prevent sudden, cascading declines (or increases) in price caused by order book imbalances.

The stop logic functionality has been activated previously for a variety of instruments. In the case of the E-mini S&P 500 futures, the stop logic functionality has been triggered a number of times in the past few years, including several times during the financial crisis in the Fall of 2008, when market data indicates similar conditions as those seen on May 6.

On May 6, activation of the stop logic functionality initiated a five second pause in trading on the E-mini S&P 500 futures contract. The price of the E-mini S&P 500 futures rebounded after the five second pause imposed by the stop logic functionality.

Staff analysis of market performance measures is consistent with the conclusion that a very temporary, but serious liquidity shortage occurred across the securities and futures markets.

The "stop logic" pause is a different situa

This proposed requirement is designed to make it easier for an investor to conduct a thorough investment analysis of the ABS offering at the time of its initial investment decision. In addition, an investor may monitor ongoing performance of purchased ABS by updating its investment analysis from time to time to reflect updated asset performance.338 In this way, market participants would be able to conduct their own evaluations of ABS and may be less dependent on the analysis of third parties such as credit rating agencies.
The waterfall is a critical component of an ABS. Currently investors receive only a textual description of this information in the prospectus, which may make it difficult for them to perform a rigorous quantitative analysis of the ABS.339

You would lose control of selling it at a time that works best for you

I think imposing http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm restrictions on every Buy or Sell Order will fix this.

This already happens, just not in the way you described. There are a number of people who have access to news information before the public, in particular people working for investor magazines. In this example, a guy working for the printing company that printed BusinessWeek would tell his partner-in-crime to buy stocks mentioned favorably in the magazine, knowing that once the magazine was public, others would buy and push the price up.

I believe 99% of flaws in stock exchanges can be prevented if every trade is scrutinized as per Insider Trading rules. http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm laws.

It's deeply shameful that the SEC would use such twisted language in a proposed requirement after they wrote this http://www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf handbook on how to use Plain English for disclosure documents.

It's more than a shame that there are no "right or benefit enforceable by law against the" SEC idiots who published this proposed rule with language that violates this http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/memos/memoeng.html Presidential Memorandum.

Rarely are "mergers" destructive of corporate entities (especially so early in an acquisition)

Here are the payoff details, from the SEC press release. They were paid off, but not very well.

The SEC alleges that O'Hara and Perez had a crisis of conscience in 2006 and tried to cover their tracks by attempting to delete approximately 218 of the 225 special programs from the House 17 computer. But they did not delete the monthly backup tapes. O'Hara and Perez then cashed out hundreds of thousands of dollars each from their personal BMIS accounts before confronting Madoff and refusing to generate any more fabricated books and records.

According to O'Hara's handwritten notes from the encounter, one of them told Madoff, "I won't lie any longer. Next time, I say 'ask Frank,'" meaning that Madoff should rely on DiPascali alone to create the false data and reports.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Madoff responded by telling DiPascali to offer O'Hara and Perez as much money as necessary to keep quiet and not expose the misrepresentations. O'Hara and Perez considered the offer and demanded a salary increase of nearly 25 percent along with one-time bonuses in late 2006 of more than $60,000 each. They stated to DiPascali at the time that they did not ask for more because a greater amount might appear too suspicious. DiPascali then managed to convince O'Hara and Perez to modify computer programs so that he and other 17th floor employees could create the necessary reports themselves.

Peter Lynch, of Fidelity Investments, once wrote that he usually regarded a company name change as a sell signal. If the brand has value, why change the name? If the brand doesn't have value, why own the stock?

Suspicious name change of the month: ENVIRONMENTAL CREDITS, LTD. (FORMERLY BOYSTOYS.COM, INC.) "Prior to September 12, 2002 and through its wholly-owned subsidiary, RMA of San Francisco, Inc., a California corporation ("RMA"), we owned and operated an upscale gentlemen's club in San Francisco, California (the "Club") under the name, "Boys Toys Club. ... While our stockholders on March 7, 2008 approved the change in our name to "Environmental Credits, Ltd.," the exact form and nature of any business that we may pursue has not been determined. Our plans are in the conceptual stage only and we may or may not pursue any specific investments or business activity."

The "article" does not contain a single info on where the data actually comes from.

It's public information, from Microsoft's 10Q filings with the SEC. See Note 17, "Segment revenue and operating income".

I'd known that the whole XBox operation was struggling to break even, but I hadn't looked at the numbers for the online sector in a few years. They're losing big in that area.

Note that the Windows Division includes "Windows Live", which includes Hotmail and Messenger. "Online services" is the ad-supported part of the operation, including Bing and MSN portals, plus Microsoft's dying dial-up service, Microsoft Access. Ad revenue is way down for Q4 2009: "Online advertising revenue decreased $32 million or 3%, to $934 million, primarily reflecting a decrease in display advertising and advertiser and publisher tools revenue."

Did you not read the Google S-1 filing? Here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm Their shareholders don't have much of a leg to stand on if they want to second guess Google management.

The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds, who do not typically actively engage in corporate control. So 30% is more than 60% of the stock held by individuals, who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance.

This is probably true. However, it's worth pointing out that Google has a dual-share class structure, however, where most of the shares in the company are regular class A shares with one vote each, while the insiders have Class B shares with 10x the voting power of the regular shares. So you have to do the math a bit more carefully; how much of the profits of the company you own (your actual number of shares) isn't the same as what share of the vote you get (your proportion of A vs. B shares).

The SEC filing linked from the story makes it crystal clear:

Larry and Sergey currently hold approximately 57.7 million shares of Class B common stock, which represents approximately 18% of Google's outstanding capital stock and approximately 59% of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock. Under the terms of these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, and as a part of a five year diversification plan, Larry and Sergey each intend to sell approximately 5 million shares. If Larry and Sergey complete all the planned sales under these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, they would continue to collectively own approximately 47.7 million shares, which would represent approximately 15% of Google's outstanding capital stock and approximately 48% of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock (assuming no other sales and conversions of Google capital stock occur).

So even today, L&S control Google despite only owning 18% of the company. Nice trick, huh.

So how about we just not allow Steve Jobs to hold any Apple stock?

Nothing I said suggests that Steve Jobs should not be allowed to hold any Apple stock. Apple shareholders should benefit if the fortunes of Steve Jobs' are tied with their own. However, as an officer and director of Apple, Steve Jobs cannot act on proprietary knowledge in his purchases/sales of Apple stock. He is also required to notify the SEC of changes in his ownership of Apple stock. Feel free to peruse his filings.

So how about we just not allow Steve Jobs to hold any Apple stock?

Nothing I said suggests that Steve Jobs should not be allowed to hold any Apple stock. Apple shareholders should benefit if the fortunes of Steve Jobs' are tied with their own. However, as an officer and director of Apple, Steve Jobs cannot act on proprietary knowledge in his purchases/sales of Apple stock. He is also required to notify the SEC of changes in his ownership of Apple stock. Feel free to peruse his filings.

I hope you realize that the Ds and Rs do not really decide who investigates what or who get prosecuted or not. Puting politics in this is rather short sighted and as far as the money trail goes, that's generally in shaping laws, not investigating violations of the laws.

However, if you know of a memo or something where an administration said do not prosecute or do not investigate this person or these charges or this corruption, I would really like to see it and it would lend more credit to your position. Until then, I guess we can just say that it was

Here is a few little facts to back up what's being said. In 1998, there were 50 SEC
Commission Opinions & Orders. In 2003 there was 70. in 2004 and 2008 47 with 48 in 2007. in contrast, 2009 has seen only 25 as of October 2. If there are 16 actions by the end of the year as there was in the last quarter of 2008, that would bring the D total up to 41 and put them right on par with Bush and Clinton.

Face it, the only real difference here is publicity and you being made aware of more. I know you probably want to think your side it doing more or the other side was doing less in order to validate your political ideology or something but it just isn't true.

* Govt must regulate the market capitalization to 2 times their quarterly revenue OR
* Regulate every trade as http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

So, you are saying 79,900 employees are clones of Satan.
Wow!
They should be honored to hear that.
Tell me, where do you work? McDonalds?

It might be the first time they have put it in their 10-K report...

It isn't. Here is one from 2003:

Client
Although we are the leader in operating system software products, we face strong competition from well established companies and entities with differing approaches to the market. Competing commercial software products, including variants of Unix, are supplied by competitors, such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems and others, who are vertically integrated in both software development and hardware manufacturing and have developed operating systems that they preinstall on their own computers. Personal computer OEMs who preinstall third party operating systems may also license these firms' operating systems or Open Source software, especially offerings based on Linux. Variants of Unix run on a wide variety of computer platforms and have gained increasing acceptance as desktop operating systems, in part due to the increasing performance of standard hardware components at decreasing prices.

TFA asserts that this is the first time that Microsoft has named names of Linux vendors, but that's not strictly true either. The same 10-K filing from 2003 says the following in the "Server and Tools" section: "A number of companies supply versions of Linux, including Red Hat and VA Linux."

Overall, this is yet another total non-story based on sloppy reporting. More importantly, the Slashdot editors should be ashamed of themselves for displaying such ignorance about the competitive history between Microsoft and Linux.

Considering legal liabilities, if Google can demonstrate (for instance) losing half of their income to intentional sabotage by Microsoft, Google might be able to get compensation in court. Lets look at the numbers:
According to http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312509101727/d10q.htm#tx81455_4, Google had a total revenue of $ 5,508,990 (5.5 billion) in Q1 2009. If Microsoft had to reimburse them for half of that each quarter, it would hurt.

Also, Microsoft got away with a lot over the years but blocking their customers' favorite search engine might be too much. As in, reason enough to trigger a big wave of Apple and Linux migrations.

Finally, it would be a good reason for the DOJ to start a new round of anti-trust legislation. Last time, Microsoft got off easy because the DOJ under Bush was no longer interested in harsh penalties. But they cannot be sure of getting that kind of rescue again.

If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc. If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.

You're talking about the SEC filings available through EDGAR. Companies are required to provide a lot of information, but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.

Take a look at the last annual report for Warner Music Group Corp. Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section. Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of "Physical sales," "Digital," and "Licensing"? They're not listing how much revenue they get from songs individually.

If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc. If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.

You're talking about the SEC filings available through EDGAR. Companies are required to provide a lot of information, but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.

Take a look at the last annual report for Warner Music Group Corp. Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section. Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of "Physical sales," "Digital," and "Licensing"? They're not listing how much revenue they get from songs individually.

Slashdotters all seem to think that advertising is Google's only source of revenue...

Probably because, realistically speaking, it is. Non-advertising revenue makes up a tiny fraction of Google's overall earnings. Their most recent quarterly SEC filing makes this plain: "Advertising revenues made up 97% [of our revenues] for the three months ended March 31, 2009." All the other stuff (like selling search appliances, GDocs licensing, and the like) is the other 3%.

Waste Management was caught cooking the books ala Enron, Worldcom, etc: http://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/wastemgmt6.htm

You can also get any company's public filing through EDGAR, which is put in a standardized format, in plain old HTML.

EA's 2009 10-K

To me, the 21 million loss on Take-Two looks like small change to a company like EA. The bigger story that jumps off the income statement is one that most companies are dealing with these days, loss of goodwill. EA took a 368 million loss on goodwill impairment. What that means, for those who do not understand goodwill, is that their 2006 acquisition of JAMDAT, which they turned into is now worth 368 million less to them than it is worth on their balance sheet. That basically means they are not making the money on their cellphone business that they expected to be making.

Since the White House said Chopra will be creating jobs and reducing health care costs, it seems a question or two about his involvement with Healthaxis should be asked. In 2005, Chopra took a seat on the Board of Healthaxis, which was brokered as part of an offshoring deal that required Healthaxis to throw offshoring work to an investor's BPO company in an effort to reduce the costs of its Utah and Jamaica resources. At the time of his 2006 resignation, Healthaxis reported to the SEC that Chopra, who also sat on the firm's Compensation Committee, had 'no disagreement with the Company on any matter'.

Since the White House said Chopra will be creating jobs and reducing health care costs, it seems a question or two about his involvement with Healthaxis should be asked. In 2005, Chopra took a seat on the Board of Healthaxis, which was brokered as part of an offshoring deal that required Healthaxis to throw offshoring work to an investor's BPO company in an effort to reduce the costs of its Utah and Jamaica resources. At the time of his 2006 resignation, Healthaxis reported to the SEC that Chopra, who also sat on the firm's Compensation Committee, had 'no disagreement with the Company on any matter'.

Since the White House said Chopra will be creating jobs and reducing health care costs, it seems a question or two about his involvement with Healthaxis should be asked. In 2005, Chopra took a seat on the Board of Healthaxis, which was brokered as part of an offshoring deal that required Healthaxis to throw offshoring work to an investor's BPO company in an effort to reduce the costs of its Utah and Jamaica resources. At the time of his 2006 resignation, Healthaxis reported to the SEC that Chopra, who also sat on the firm's Compensation Committee, had 'no disagreement with the Company on any matter'.

I don't think this case is as unusual or remote as you think:

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-64.htm

US example, but many other countries have strict laws about spreading false rumors about the stock market. Sort of like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Now, this guy may or may not have been telling the truth, but that's a matter of fact, not principle. In principle, exactly the same thing could happen here.

(I'mma ask the OP for a citation.)

One of the replies to the comment that you posted links to an SEC filing that has actual numbers that that poster says back up the OP. The overall profits for the company were lower due to writedowns in other areas apparently. Just skimming that document made my head hurt though.

The above is actually true (read it here in section "Results of Operations"), although TW Cable did end up with a $8.6 billion loss for 2008 because of a $14.8 billion write-down on assets.

If I offered you a ten dollar line of credit to purchase stock with, you accepted and purchased said stock, I changed my mind, and sold the stock (which is your property) it seems to me that I would get in trouble for fraudulently selling your property. Unless I'm missing something here...

Yes, you're missing something. Margin lending is very strictly regulated, and the regulations allow brokers to sell off your positions in many situations; this is called a margin call. From the SEC investor guidance site:

Always remember that your broker may not be required to make a margin call or otherwise tell you that your account has fallen below the firm's maintenance requirement. Your broker may be able to sell your securities at any time without consulting you first. Under most margin agreements, even if your firm offers to give you time to increase the equity in your account, it can sell your securities without waiting for you to meet the margin call.

In this case, well, if your account is only worth $20k, but you bought a million dollars of stock on margin, you'd very clearly not be meeting initial margin of 50% nor even maintenance margin of 25%. Not even close.

a story that might be an April Fools day joke

Hey I myself enjoy taking a joke too far but if this is an April Fool's Day joke, I must confess I would have jumped out and yelled "surprise" before filing a merger and acquisition notice with the Security and Exchange Commission of the United States Government. I hear they don't take too kindly to joke 8-Ks.

From the SEC Filing:

On April 1, 2009, Rackable Systems, Inc. ("Rackable"), a Delaware corporation, announced that it had signed an Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement") to acquire substantially all the assets of Silicon Graphics, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("SGI"), including SGI's non-U.S. subsidiaries and operations, other than certain assets unrelated to the ongoing business. The Agreement, dated March 31, 2009, was made and entered into by and among Rackable, SGI and certain SGI subsidiaries. The Agreement has been approved by the respective boards of directors of Rackable and SGI.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Rackable or a subsidiary of Rackable, will acquire the assets for a purchase price of approximately $25 million in cash, $10 million of which will be placed in escrow and available to Rackable following the closing to reimburse Rackable for payments and expenses made or incurred in connection with certain tax matters. In addition, Rackable will assume certain liabilities associated with the acquired assets. Following the signing of the Agreement, SGI and certain of its affiliated entities located in the U.S. filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and motions to approve the Agreement.

Also note that they had planned to repurchase up to $40 million worth of shares but it looks like instead they're opting to acquire SGI. What that means to you day traders and quant fund managers, who knows?

And note to Rackable's PR: Either this was a genius joke, or a terrible day to announce huge news. Someone either deserves a promotion or a firing.

The world doesn't screech to a halt because a bunch of nerds are slapping their knees and pulling pranks; here's evidence someone got something done yesterday.

If it's really as open as they claim, all the accounting will be public, too. So anyone who wants to do some work can see how much the company is spending on those operating expenses, and the (ongoing) income statements. If they accept it as reasonable, they can do the work, or they can just not do the work.

The accounting records of all publicly traded companies in the US is public knowledge. You can find them here.

Traditionally, people always squabble over the retained earnings line of the accounting statement. This is usually a big bargaining chip for unions against publicly traded companies. Although, all well run companies should have some retained earnings, no one can agree on how much is too much or too little.

Here is a different analysis of the facts from me. From the SEC 10-K form Verizon filed for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2008, submitted 2/24/2009 and can be found here:
http://idea.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732712/000119312509036349/dex13.htm

About a quarter of the way down the page is the Income and Expenses breakdown for the Wireless division. Keep in mind that 45% Verizon Wireless is owned by Vodafone and 55% is owned by Verizon proper. So Vodafone and Verizon most likely have some sort profit/loss sharing plan. In any case, these numbers are for the whole Wireless division. In 2008 the division received just over $49 billion in income, a 12.5% increase from 2007. The total expenses for 2008 ended up at just over $35 billion, 10.1% higher than 2007. The profit was about $14 billion, or 18.6% higher than 2007.

As one looks at the breakdown of the wireless division expenses for 2008 one may notice a few odd or unusual numbers, 15.5 billion was from the cost of services and sales. These include both the costs of operating the wireless network, routing calls, and discounts given to customers upgrading their equipment. Not too much interesting I suppose, Verizon could start charging what the phone was actually worth instead of the joke prices they do now, the primary portion of the 19% increase in expenses this section from 2007 was customer equipment upgrades. However, some may claim that this passes the costs on to customers, but the discounts also lock customers into two year contracts.

The $14.2 billion spent on the "Selling, General, and Administrative Expense" category is more interesting on the other hand. It represents wages, sales commissions, benefits, advertising, promotions, bad debt expenses, and regulatory fees. "Can you hear me now? Good." Who thinks that Verizon spends a bit much on advertising these days? Who thinks that Verizon could cut back even, just a bit, on advertising, retail stores, gimmicky promotions, and sales commissions for corporate sales, without significantly cutting back on service or increasing customer costs? In 2008, Verizon managed to decrease its cost related to wages and benefits even.

These spectrum fees may exist so that if Verizon wishes to keep its spectrum, it better be willing to use it in a competitive manner. Otherwise, it is a yearly unneeded cost, like many Verizon employees, potentially, at least in the eyes of a few highly paid, but low skilled executives. One might think that surrendering unusable, costly spectrum to the FCC would be wise. Think of these fees perhaps as being a bit like property taxes for radio spectrum, an added incentive to dispose of costly unused assets that have value.

Of course, I think the whole division of the 700MHz spectrum should be done again. It would be a better fix if it was done properly this time though.