Slashdot Mirror

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.

That said, since he's "outgoing" and with a comfortable financial situation, I doubt he much cares. Perhaps in his spare time he can lounge by the pool and read something enlightening.

Exactly. Somewhere in the list of people who traded the stock in the week or two before the spam run are the ones responsible. They can be found; that's what the U.S. Government's Financial Crimes Information Network is for. If we have to have all this Big Brother stuff, we should get some benefit from it.

Send those stock spams to SEC Enforcement.

I am not familiar with OLSpamCop, as I do not use Outlook. I am familiar with SpamCop, and how they need the detail in the headers to be intact, so I would guess that this is a workable solution.

If we take the profit out of spam, we will see less spam. To date, pump and dump spam bombs work, so the scammers continue to hire spammers to flood our inboxes. Without getting caught, the risk to scammer and spammer is zero. With the SEC pursuing the scammers, the scam becomes less profitable due to the increased risk. With less profit, there is less to pay the spammers, and thus (hopefully) less spam.

I met an SEC investigator at a social event not too long ago, and it did not take long for the conversation to turn to this subject. She said they take this very seriously, and submitted P&D spam has allowed them to prosecute quite a few scammers. The earlier into such a campaign, the better, so they can start monitoring as soon as possible.

Forward the message to mailto:enforcement@sec.gov. Use Thunderbird or another mail client that does not strip or mangle the original headers (like Outlook does).

The SEC will devote significant resources investigating and often prosecuting the people who are behind these scams.

Actually, couldn't that be used as a good way to trace the spammers?

This should be reported, in very clear terms, to "enforcement@sec.gov". Or on the SEC's online form. Or to the SEC Division of Enforcement, 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549. Because it's a felony being committed in support of a pump-and-dump stock scam.

The stock being hyped is "TTEN", which has very low volume. The SEC can find out who was trading it just before the spam run started. That's how to find the people behind this. They can follow the money.

So put together a comprehensive package listing all known stocks being hyped by this thing and the dates the spam began, and ship it off to the SEC. The SEC and FinCen (the U.S. Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) have the data mining tools to look at the stock transactions and find the people behind this. The SEC has gone after pump-and-dump spammers many times before, and they usually get them.

Microsoft issued an relatively unusual press release in mid-September 2003, announcing that Emerson was leaving to "spend more time with his family". The announcement got published in the New York Times, and Emerson's supposed end date was August 31, 2003. He would consult on "complicated transactions".

Emerson's position as "SVP Corporate Development" reporting directly to Steve Ballmer was abolished on his resignation, and the Corp Development division demoted to supervision by the CFO. After a period, Brian Roberts, Emerson's long time deputy was promoted to run the division. Robert's left Microsoft in 2005 to work with Emerson at his new position at Evercore Partners. Roberts and Emerson have been associated since running telecomunications portfolio in the dot-com days at the investment bank Lazard-Freres.

Emerson made political contributions to the Bush re-election campaign in mid-September 2003, and listed his occupation as Microsoft Executive, so his August 2003 resignation is a bit atmospheric or conveniently backdated.

Emerson had been given a 12 Million dollar loan as a signing bonus to MSFT in 2000. A mid-September 2003 proxy noted that he was paying the loan back with vested stock options. The options were underwater, but had a positive Black-Scholes valuation based on their future potential to be profitable. Emerson used this positive valuation to retire the loan on a cash free basis.

Emerson had little public trace through most of 2004, and then acquired a position at Evercore Partners, a mergers and acquisitions investment advisor. Evercore has since IPO'd, and is traded as EVR.

Emerson and a Baystar principal Andrew Farkas were both listed as advisors/investors in a NYC Venture, I-Hatch Partners. A Farkas relative (Younger brother, I believe) is the fund executive. This is good evidence that the Baystar and Emerson relationship had alternative means of communication, and unreturned phone calls from MSFT headquarters should be considered a convenient fiction.

Emerson and deputy Roberts also show up in July 2003 SEC documents as the signatory for the Microsoft investment in IMMR (Immersion) that had patent suits against Sony and MSFT. The MSFT stock investment in IMMR ended the Microsoft portion of the suit (for game controllers) while ensuring the suit against arch-rival Sony would continue. This "investment in a strategic lawsuit" has echoes in the Baystar Pipe deal occuring just months later. We can conclude that the IMMR and SCOX investments are implementations of a similar strategic idea. Sources:
http://news.com.com/2100-1022_3-5079594.html
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/0001 19312503051346/ddef14a.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950 3E6DB103AF933A1575AC0A9659C8B63
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?cit y=SEATTLE&st=WA&;last=EMerson&first=RICHARD

Nice to see that HP General Counsel Charles N. Charnas is able to juggle the demands of Patriciagate SEC filings as well as SEC filings for HP execs' personal stock sales, including a 250,000 share dump ($9+ million) this week by an EVP and a 100,000 share dump ($3.6+ million) late last week by HP's CFO.

Nice to see that HP General Counsel Charles N. Charnas is able to juggle the demands of Patriciagate SEC filings as well as SEC filings for HP execs' personal stock sales, including a 250,000 share dump ($9+ million) this week by an EVP and a 100,000 share dump ($3.6+ million) late last week by HP's CFO.

Nice to see that HP General Counsel Charles N. Charnas is able to juggle the demands of Patriciagate SEC filings as well as SEC filings for HP execs' personal stock sales, including a 250,000 share dump ($9+ million) this week by an EVP and a 100,000 share dump ($3.6+ million) late last week by HP's CFO.

Fun highlights:

• Urbanesq.com Inc. ("Urbanesq") was incorporated August 25, 2000 under the laws of the Province of Canada. Effective October 18, 2001, Urbanesq completed a merger with Koala International Wireless Inc. ("Koala"), a public company incorporated in the State of Nevada...changed the name of the Company to Trimax Corporation...
• On July 29, 2005, the Company entered into an Exclusive Supply agreement ... provided the Company with the exclusive right to sell Switzerland based Ascom broadband over power line communication access products ("Products") in Canada and non-exclusive rights world wide, which the "Partner" represented that it had secured itself from Ascom. ... Subsequent to the signing and the advancement of funds for the "Exclusive Supply Agreement" the company was made aware that the product supplier had no right to grant a sub-license from Ascom. Furthermore, the supplier was previously in default and was never in any position to grant any sub-license on its own license.
• The Company has not earned any revenues from limited principal operations...
• Total Current Assets: $105,115. Total current liabilities: $536,870.

So, after six years, the company has zero revenue and couldn't even get set up as a second-tier reseller of broadband over powerline products. Which is probably why the stock is at $0.38 and headed down.

If you go back to older related SEC filings, you can find the story of the "Hipster portable Internet access device" (didn't happen), and the previous history of Koala International Wireless as a vitamin company under the name "Kettle River Group" (also a flop).

This stock is not "poised for a breakthrough". Except maybe in the down direction.

verizon communications is the single largest builder and owner of fiber in the entire country. however, they are forced by the government to operate at a loss. since they are considered "communications",

Not all stocks can be shorted: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm or http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho 1204.htm Options are only available for a small fraction of securities. Smart spammers would choose securities that cannot be counter-manipulated.

Not all stocks can be shorted: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm or http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho 1204.htm Options are only available for a small fraction of securities. Smart spammers would choose securities that cannot be counter-manipulated.

"I wonder if it is against NASDQ/NYSE/etc exchange rules for a company to knowingly engage or have a 3rd party engage in unsolicited spam to promote the stock."

It is against SEC regulation (read Federal LAW). It's called "Pump and Dump" or "Microcap fruad"

http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm

"I wonder if it is against NASDQ/NYSE/etc exchange rules for a company to knowingly engage or have a 3rd party engage in unsolicited spam to promote the stock."

It is against SEC regulation (read Federal LAW). It's called "Pump and Dump" or "Microcap fruad"

http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm

Anybody with a really short resume looking for a job at Phantom?

http://www.phantom.net/content/contactUs/careers.h tml:

Our future depends on bright, energetic, talented people who share a passion for creating the best product imaginable! We offer a challenging work environment, a competitive salary, and excellent benefits. Interested candidates should apply online using our contact form and selecting the "Human Resources" department. Please copy and paste your resume into the subject field.

The fact that they have no actual office, and use Mailboxes Etc as a mail drop, certainly makes the work environment challenging. Another great line:

SEC Filings
You can browse SEC filings in Edgar by clicking here. Note that you will be redirected to an external website. We cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information therein.

Why does Phantom have a disclaimer warning investors not to trust what they read about them on the SEC site? It should be reworded: "Phantom cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information we file with the SEC", like: Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q or 10-QSB, or [Amend]Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities, or Registration Withdrawal Request.

-Don

Anybody with a really short resume looking for a job at Phantom?

http://www.phantom.net/content/contactUs/careers.h tml:

Our future depends on bright, energetic, talented people who share a passion for creating the best product imaginable! We offer a challenging work environment, a competitive salary, and excellent benefits. Interested candidates should apply online using our contact form and selecting the "Human Resources" department. Please copy and paste your resume into the subject field.

The fact that they have no actual office, and use Mailboxes Etc as a mail drop, certainly makes the work environment challenging. Another great line:

SEC Filings
You can browse SEC filings in Edgar by clicking here. Note that you will be redirected to an external website. We cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information therein.

Why does Phantom have a disclaimer warning investors not to trust what they read about them on the SEC site? It should be reworded: "Phantom cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information we file with the SEC", like: Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q or 10-QSB, or [Amend]Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities, or Registration Withdrawal Request.

-Don

Anybody with a really short resume looking for a job at Phantom?

http://www.phantom.net/content/contactUs/careers.h tml:

Our future depends on bright, energetic, talented people who share a passion for creating the best product imaginable! We offer a challenging work environment, a competitive salary, and excellent benefits. Interested candidates should apply online using our contact form and selecting the "Human Resources" department. Please copy and paste your resume into the subject field.

The fact that they have no actual office, and use Mailboxes Etc as a mail drop, certainly makes the work environment challenging. Another great line:

SEC Filings
You can browse SEC filings in Edgar by clicking here. Note that you will be redirected to an external website. We cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information therein.

Why does Phantom have a disclaimer warning investors not to trust what they read about them on the SEC site? It should be reworded: "Phantom cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information we file with the SEC", like: Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q or 10-QSB, or [Amend]Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities, or Registration Withdrawal Request.

-Don

Anybody with a really short resume looking for a job at Phantom?

http://www.phantom.net/content/contactUs/careers.h tml:

Our future depends on bright, energetic, talented people who share a passion for creating the best product imaginable! We offer a challenging work environment, a competitive salary, and excellent benefits. Interested candidates should apply online using our contact form and selecting the "Human Resources" department. Please copy and paste your resume into the subject field.

The fact that they have no actual office, and use Mailboxes Etc as a mail drop, certainly makes the work environment challenging. Another great line:

SEC Filings
You can browse SEC filings in Edgar by clicking here. Note that you will be redirected to an external website. We cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information therein.

Why does Phantom have a disclaimer warning investors not to trust what they read about them on the SEC site? It should be reworded: "Phantom cannot guarantee the accuracy and timeliness of any information we file with the SEC", like: Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q or 10-QSB, or [Amend]Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities, or Registration Withdrawal Request.

-Don

What is obvious is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

A document management system comparable to Filenet's offerings would require more than 20 man years to develop. If you disagree, then please go for it; Filenet needs the competition. Otherwise, STFU.

Filenet provides more than just document management software. They provide a whole slew of products, as well as consulting services and support. Their document management, content management and workflow management products are used by 70 companies in the Fortune 100. Filenet is debt-free, flush with cash and is making money (~$422M in 2005).

IMO, IBM got a good deal, and the market agrees with me.

Ottelini (INTC) made $25M from 2003-2005.

Ruiz (AMD) earned less than a third as much.

For over $15 million smackers in three years -- the equivalent for one of us little people of toiling away for one hundred years at a pretty decent salary of $150,000 -- I wouldn't want to switch places with AMD, either.

Always be careful to parse the words of CEOs.

Ottelini (INTC) made $25M from 2003-2005.

Ruiz (AMD) earned less than a third as much.

For over $15 million smackers in three years -- the equivalent for one of us little people of toiling away for one hundred years at a pretty decent salary of $150,000 -- I wouldn't want to switch places with AMD, either.

Always be careful to parse the words of CEOs.

To AC: no I'm not author20 and usually don't read much of digg.

I'm posting AC here since discussions involving Vonage usually invoke fanatical responses from Vonage cronies. . . they permeate most any VoIP discussion group, invoking censorship and preventing any REAL discussion of the issues regarding VoIP.

MrNougat: There are plenty of other VoIP providers out there that offer better service and rates than Vonage and don't promote spyware. For example I'm paying $15/month for 3 lines in three area codes. . .

AFAIK Vonage is the ONLY VoIP company that actively supposts spyware.

grylnsmn:

1. Mr. Citron settled with the SEC http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-5.htm/ for $22.5 million in 2003 and was barred from serving as head of a publicly traded company. That is why he is not the CEO of Vonage now. Even though he was not convicted, the fact that he settled with the SEC and paid a fine should be considered as evidence of past impropriety.

2-3. Vonage SELLS the device to customers while failing to disclose that the device is locked to Vonage service. Leasing the device would be fine. Loaning the device would be fine. Even selling the device would probably be ok IF Vonage disclosed that the device doesn't function without Vonage service. Vonage doesn't do that. That is deceptive and anticompetitive.

4. The policy can easily be established by reading in the many VoIP forums about Vonage and noticing all the complaints about this practice. If it was simply a matter of a few renegade reps, instead of Vonage policy, the practice would not be so common. It would aslo be confirmed by the fact that other VoIP providers have few to no complaints regarding false LNP porting claims.

5. Vonage only recently started claiming the site wasn't theirs after complaints to regulatory bodies occurred concerning bullying of blocking of posters with negative comments against Vonage.

The site name is Vonage-Forum.com.

If you truly believe that the site does not belong to Vonage, and that Vonage is simply not enforcing its trademarks, then I suggest you try registering a domain such as Vonage-.com/net/org/us and see what happens

6. Vonage attempted to sell an IPO to unsophisticated investors, which is a BIG no-no, regardless of ANY prospectus. Additionally, massive amounts of shares were sold short. Only BIG institutional investors have access to that many shares.

It also just happens that the Chairman used to run an (indicted AND failed) online brokerage. Coincidence?

On top of all this, it turns out Vonage is THE (or one of) largest financiers of spyware.

I'm not suggesting that ANY of the above WAS illegal .

I'm just pointing out that if some of it isn't, well then maybe there are some problems, still, with US laws. . .

On December 20, 1999, the Commission proposed new Regulation FD - for "fair disclosure" - to combat selective disclosure. Selective disclosure occurs when issuers release material nonpublic information about a company to selected persons, such as securities analysts or institutional investors, before disclosing the information to the general public. This practice undermines the integrity of the securities markets and reduces investor confidence in the fairness of those markets. Selective disclosure also may create conflicts of interests for securities analysts, who may have an incentive to avoid making negative statements about an issuer for fear of losing their access to selectively disclosed information.

It sounds like you need to call the FCC or the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). I know from working at MCI for several years that the phone company is supposed to handle your claims of fraud very seriously, and if they aren't you need to talk with the government about it.

FCC Info (try them first):
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
1-888-225-5322

SEC Info:
http://www.sec.gov/contact.shtml
1-800-SEC-0330

Good Luck!

Subsequent to the story breaking, Blizzard has asked various sites who have posted the slides to take them down, citing copyright concerns. I want to make it clear that the material was obtained lawfully by me, that no confidentiality was violated, and that such usage by the media is also protected under the doctrine of fair use. The presentation is on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Comission, and is made available freely to EVERYONE So if you want to see the ENTIRE PRESENTATION yourself, including the slides relevant to Blizzard, simply go here.

And shame on Blizzard for trying to bully the media.

Bruce

Offered at a loss

DSL/cable isn't being offered at a loss. This is simply untrue! Go check out the financial statements of your local exchange carrier (LEC) http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml

Lots of them make huge coin and are paying out big dividends.

Forget the huge windfall later, most assume that data will eventually be commoditized in the way voice was (i.e., things will get worse).

If you look at the SEC filing (pg. 18), the $4,250 is actually abbreviated from $4,250,000. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/946581/0001 12528206003343/b413621-10q.htm

If you look at the SEC filing (pg. 18), the $4,250 is actually abbreviated from $4,250,000. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/946581/0001 12528206003343/b413621-10q.htm

Normally that's true, and courts have upheld that profit maximization is expected, but "Don't be evil" and "Making the world a better place" are both clearly stated in Google's IPO prospectus. Stockholders shouldn't be surprised if they do what they said they were going to do when they went public. It might be different if they made no mention of it.

However, I have not been able to find any evidence to suggest that Vonage has been unfair in its IPO process. Of course, as this story pans out, we may actually hear from some of the individuals involved.

I did, however, find an early SEC filing related to this auction, available here.
This filing doesn't seem to give any information about the proposed initial price, but I thought it was interesting that the company did disclose that theirs was a high risk stock, and listed several risk factors that could negatively impact the value of their stock.

Take a look at the background history of the Moller flying car (The red one always on Popular Science's cover). The guy developing it has made a killing off of licensing tech that he created for the car. The project is considered a spectacular success even though he may never actually deliver a working flying car.

Ok, you bought into their crap and you actually believe that they're creating suffcient 'new' stuff here to inflate the costs. You're wrong because they don't actually generate any of the new expensive in any of these types of add-ons that I've seen so far, but OK, you believe it.

I haven't seen any reason to disbelieve Rockstar. Maybe others have bungled the job, but why should anyone else's performance reflect on Rockstar? I'm not sure why you keep jumping to these "you're wrong" conclusions. How can either of us possibly be right or wrong when neither of us have seen any episodic content for this game/series?

I read the other post that you linked me to, and your cost estimates are still wildly speculative. They do not hold any ground in the real world. If you want to read about their P&L (and gobs of other information), check out Edgar for their SEC filings. They're also available by searching on Yahoo finance. Stop with the BS speculation on what you think talent costs and what you think it costs to run a company and instead, do some real research and read up on what it did cost.

Also, I could care less what it costs to go see a movie, because that has exceeded my cost tolerance years ago, and I don't go anymore.

But enough people still go to the movies that it's highly profitable. It's not important until you're part of a larger group that makes movies less profitable. You're not there yet.

And Hollywood talent and pop music in video games is a stupid waste of money in most cases. You can make a case for the music in some games, but there are plenty of talented voice actors who would kill for a job that there is no need to pay a name premium. You can't name a single game that would have suffered for lack of hollywood star level voice talent (If you think you can, you'd be wrong)

Again with the right and wrong based merely upon speculation -- it's nonsensical. In any case, I thought that using Samuel jackson and Chris Penn as the first two voice actors in GTA:SA was a really nice touch. I recgonized them right away, and liked it -- I didn't mind paying for that. The fact that you don't care is only a matter of opinion, and I have a feeling that the market disagrees with you. Similarly, RS chose to use major label music. I also miss the days of cheap music in games, but RS took a different angle, and I also felt that it was a nice touch. Again, given the number of people who bought the game, the market seems to disagree with you. What other games have had a major label music selection as wide as the GTA series? You suggest that it's old news and it's been done over and over.

You are consistently confusing fact with opinion. You're coming off as neither credible nor mature with the I'm-right-you're-wrong stuff. It's difficult to have a discussion (not an argument) when someone is trying so hard to be right or wrong. If you want to discuss this further, I'd be glad to. However, if you want to continue to be confrontational and rude, I'll wish you the best and politely be on my way.

From this recent SEC filing by Vonage it looks like to be eligible to get shares at the IPO price it needs to be true that (among other things--this is not legal or financial advice, etc):

The customer opened an account directly with Vonage America on or prior to December 15, 2005. The customer must have opened an account with Vonage America and not through a third-party wholesaler.

The customer maintained the Vonage account in good standing through February 1, 2006.

So, running out and signing up for a Vonage account doesn't look like a way to get in on the IPO. That seems like a dumb idea. How many people would sign a 1-yr or 2-yr contract just to have a shot at getting shares at the IPO price. Seems like bad business to me (but possibly necessitated by all the SEC rules...)

What's more, the company is ripe for a pump & dump. He has an immense interest in going public, getting the stock value up in the air, then selling out. Hell, he actually had a profit holding company named Treasure Solutions in Florida and an offshore trust.

Again, from the SEC filing,
"Jeffrey A. Citron, our principal stockholder, founder, Chairman and Chief Strategist, will own 48,427,617 shares of common stock, or 31% of our common stock."

More detail about the fraud he conducted.

Pay careful attention to the following quote. The guy is into illegal profiteering:

("NASD") rules restricted use of the SOES system to small retail customer orders and prohibited broker dealers from using SOES to trade for their own accounts. By fraudulent means, defendants Sheldon Maschler, Citron, McCarty, Erik Maschler, and Heartland used the SOES system to execute millions of proprietary trades, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in illegal profits. The great majority of these profits were paid to Sheldon Maschler and Citron, but other defendants profited as well. The fraudulent scheme was carefully planned and orchestrated, and was concealed from regulators through the use of sophisticated software, the creation of nominee accounts and fictitious books and records, and the filing of false reports with the Commission. Defendants Sheldon Maschler, Citron, McCarty, and Erik Maschler carried out the fraudulent scheme from 1993 to March 1998 while in control of Datek Securities. Defendants Sheldon Maschler, McCarty, and Erik Maschler carried out the scheme from April 1998 through June 2001 while in control of Heartland, which had purchased Datek Securities' day-trading business on March 30, 1998. Defendant Raft Investments, Inc. ("Raft") aided and abetted the SOES fraudulent scheme.

The prospectus should be enough to convince all but the most adamant conspiracy theorists that this isn't a hoax.

As for "scam", well, has it occurred to no one else that some scams are "legal"?

Everyone's talking about the financials, the financials, the financials.

What about the people, the people, the people? Specifically: Jeffrey A. Citron, Vonage's founder, chairman and chief strategist seems to have been a very naughty boy in a previous life.

( INFORMATION CONCERNING OUR FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF STRATEGIST ) Hopefully, this bookmark will take you to the exact point in the lengthy document (just about all of which is "fine print") that details a younger Jeffrey's pattern of behavior.

I'll excerpt here:

"During a portion of the time that Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities, the SEC alleged that Datek Securities, Mr. Maschler, Mr. Citron and certain other individuals participated in an extensive fraudulent scheme involving improper use of the Nasdaq Stock Market's Small Order Execution System, or SOES."

"The SEC alleged that Mr. Citron and the other defendants accessed the SOES system to execute millions of unlawful proprietary trades, generating tens of millions of dollars in illegal profits."

"To settle the charges, Mr. Maschler, Mr. Citron and the other individuals paid $70 million in civil penalties and disgorgements of profits, of which Mr. Citron paid $22.5 million in civil penalties. These fines were among the largest fines ever collected by the SEC against individuals."

But, maybe there's not too much risk going forward, because:

"In addition, Mr. Citron was enjoined from future violations of certain provisions of the U.S. securities laws, including the antifraud provisions set forth in Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act."

So, that means that he promised never to do it again, and we can take that to the bank, right?

Enron was all legal ... until it wasn't.

I'm a very satisfied Vonage customer and would probably have chosen to invest, until I saw this information. Would you invest in Kenneth Lay's next venture?

I'm not sure yet what this means to me as a customer. At the very least, I'll be researching my exit strategy and appreciate the various references to Skype and other alternatives.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1272830/000 104746906006601/a2169686zs-1a.htm

The past background of our founder, Chairman and Chief Strategist, Jeffrey A. Citron, may adversely affect our ability to enter into business relationships and may have other adverse effects on our business.

Prior to joining Vonage, Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities Corporation and Datek Online Holdings Corp., including as an employee of, and consultant for, Datek Securities and, later, as one of the principal executive officers and largest stockholders of Datek Online. Datek Online, which was formed in early 1998 following a reorganization of the Datek business, was a large online brokerage firm. Datek Securities was a registered broker-dealer that engaged in a number of businesses, including proprietary trading and order execution services. During a portion of the time Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities, the SEC alleged that Datek Securities, Mr. Citron and other individuals participated in an extensive fraudulent scheme involving improper use of the Nasdaq Stock Market's Small Order Execution System, or SOES. Datek Securities (through its successor iCapital Markets LLC), Mr. Citron and other individuals entered into settlements with the SEC in 2002 and 2003, which resulted in extensive fines, bans from future association with securities brokers or dealers and enjoinments against future violations of certain U.S. securities laws. The NASD previously had imposed disciplinary action against Datek Securities, Mr. Citron and other individuals in connection with alleged violations of the rules and regulations regarding the SOES. These and other matters are discussed under "Information Concerning our Founder, Chairman and Chief Strategist."

There is a risk that some third parties will not do business with us, that some prospective investors will not purchase our securities or that some customers may be wary of signing up for service with us as a result of allegations against Mr. Citron and his past SEC and NASD settlements. We believe that some financial institutions and accounting firms have declined to enter into business relationships with us in the past, at least in part because of these matters. Other institutions and potential business associates may not be able to do business with us because of internal policies that restrict associations with individuals who have entered into SEC and NASD settlements. While we believe that these matters have not had a material impact on our business, they may have a greater impact on us when we become a public company, including by adversely affecting our ability to enter into commercial relationships with third parties that we need to effectively and competitively grow our business. Further, should Mr. Citron in the future be accused of, or be shown to have engaged in, additional improper or illegal activities, the impact of those accusations or the potential penalties from such activities could be exacerbated because of the matters discussed above. If any of these risks were to be realized, there could be a material adverse effect on our business or the market price of our common stock.

I don't think this is a scam. Vonage has filed the details of their offer to the customer with the SEC

Looks like the IPO is valid:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1272830/000 104746906006657/a2169920zex-99_1.htm

But that does not mean the website is.

Their SEC filings are here.

A story on it over at VoIP Magazine is here.

Their (not yet active) trading charts can be found here under the symbol "VG".

If this is a fishing scam, it's a pretty darn good one. More likely, Vonage wanted their financial issues to be separate from their marketing site and didn't think about how that would look.

They filed their S-1 a while back. The story is true, despite commenters' claims to the contrary.

Vonage S-1

Our revenues were $18.7 million in 2003, $79.7 million in 2004, $269.2 million in 2005 and $118.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006. While our revenues have grown rapidly, we have experienced increasing net losses, primarily driven by our increase in marketing expenses. For the period from inception through March 31, 2006, our accumulated deficit was $467.4 million. For 2005 and the three months ended March 31, 2006, our net loss was $261.3 million and $85.2 million, respectively and our marketing expenses were $243.4 million and $88.3 million, respectively.

For all we know, Microsoft or Google might have lost a billion in some bad internet investment and buried it somewhere in their P&L where nobody is looking.

Avanade probably comes close. Microsoft donated $500M in cash, and Anderson Consulting donated $500M in assets.

See: Andersen Consulting and Microsoft in US$1 Billion Pact To Form Joint Venture and Expand Global Alliance

They don't seem to have $1B anymore (filings). I interviewed with them in 2000 for a research position (creating best-practices for designing mobile applications), but they restructured the job away before the hiring decision (they decided the field devs should write whitepapers based on their experiences).

Disclosure: I now work for Microsoft, and opinions stated here are my own.

I'm not really sure I see what the big deal is. While $1.1 million might seem like an excessive amount to spend on security for one person, it isn't compensation to Bezos. It's an expenditure for security of a company official while he's conducting company business, not a paycheck.

1,100,000 (2)

(2) Represents the approximate incremental cost of security arrangements for Mr. Bezos in addition to security arrangements provided at business facilities and for business travel. The Company believes that all Company-incurred security costs are for the Company's benefit.

This is NOT the IRS playing the media, this is based on a company filing a report with the SEC... following the legally established rules (see 13(l)) that the company must "disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations..."

In that case wouldn't Tom be guilty of illicit insider trading, as he used confidential information when trading securities? In order to profit he had to initiate the trade either before the trade secret was public, or shortly afterwords - both of which are illegal. He might even be in violation of some market manipulation laws.

Note, this does not disprove your core point that if someone publishes trade secrets they are just as responsible for the damage caused by doing so as the leaker.

The stock he "sold" was actually handled by Apple as withholding, just like you'd see on a normal paycheck. (Except for lots more money, heh.)

See the SEC Form 4.

"Shares withheld by Registrant to satisfy minimum statutory withholding requirements on vesting of restricted stock."

IOW, he couldn't get them and then sell DIS to pay for the taxes. (If he could, he'd also have to pay the capital gains tax on that, anyway.)

In short - he thinks APPL is a worse bet than Disney.

I do, too. Appell Pete Corp doesn't seem to be doing much these days. AAPL isn't doing badly, though.

What exactly would the violation be?

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates publicly traded companies in the U.S., requires companies to release information that would affect their stock price as soon as they become aware of it. If Microsoft deliberately delayed releasing information about Vista, it could be in violation of those rules.

It's somewhat of a fact of life that companies and even people do try to mix good news with bad

Publicly traded companies, like elected officials, are necessarily held to a higher standard than private companies or private individuals. Investors have a right to expect that the companies they invest in aren't playing games with corporate announcements. As the SEC puts it: "Only through the steady flow of timely, comprehensive, and accurate information can people make sound investment decisions."