Slashdot Mirror

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/

According to this information MS had 60 in cash (in 2004) and burns about 28 per year.

They could give away everything they make for free for 20-50 years before going bankrupt.

So nice to see clueless moderators mod this nonsense up. NOT!

Get your bloody facts straight!

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/0001 19312505093909/dex991.htm

Once they file the 10K there will be a better idea of the cash flow and the MDA (management discussion and analysis).

Do you really think that context-based ads on old newspaper stories can match $55 million per year?

I dunno, do you think context-based ads shoehorned onto search engine result pages can match $55 million per year? A quick perusal of Google's SEC filing indicates that they pulled in $293 million from AdWords in just one three-month quarter last year (Q1 2004).

Let me say that again: In one quarter, their ads pulled in more than 500% of what the WSJ earned from subscriptions all year.

So, do I think there's money in ads, if they're context-sensitive and not annoying? Yeah, I guess I do.

Want a recent example of the corruption in the U.S. government? Here's one from Ed Foster: Crime and Punishment, and Copyright.

In the U.S. government of today, anyone can get anything they want if they have money.

Quotes:

"After all, the music and movie industry moguls who spend so much time and money getting Congress to do their bidding are not without sins of their own. Just as an example, last month Time Warner -- a corporation with a foot in both industries -- agreed to pay a $300 million fine to the SEC to settle civil fraud charges. It had earlier paid $210 million to get the DoJ to go away on criminal fraud charges involving some of the same accounting shenanigans. Time Warner just had to pay this chump change rather admit guilt, in spite of the fact that, as one SEC officer noted, some 'of the misconduct occurred while the ink of a prior Commission cease-and-desist order was barely dry.' Oh, by the way, the Time Warner CFO, Controller, and Deputy Controller also agreed to never do such nasty things again. But apparently they don't face jail time, or even fines, and they're still working for Time Warner.

"So it's possible some of the same Time Warner officials who have been caught once or twice robbing investors in the past could be doing so again even as we speak. Of course, last week they may have been too busy passing out rewards to their minions on Capital Hill, or perhaps they were involved in all those lawsuits the MPAA and RIAA were filing to harass the researchers developing the Internet2."

KPMG knows a thing or two or threeabout numbers not quite adding up.

My favourite part of the 10Q filing is in 10Qa, under "Other Assets".

It reads:

As in, none left.

Everybody should make a copy of this document and e-mail it to enforcement@sec.gov. I bet if enough people complained, they would launch an investigation.

Steve Jobs does the same thing, IIRC.

He does, and when he first came back to Apple, he refused bonuses and other compensation. But that has changed in the mean time.

In 2004, he only took a $1 salary, according to the company's 2004 annual report. But in the past two years, he's accepted bonuses and other compensation of about $3.5 million, and he's been awarded more than $80 million in stock awards and options.

Here's a link to the 2004 Apple annual report's section about executive compensation:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001 04746904035975/a2147337z10-k.htm#toc_eo1620_5

Cell phone companies sell the phones to cellular carriers, who resell them at a loss (at best breakeven on a cheap phone). Perhaps at the beginning of life on an exclusive hot phone the carrier might make some money, but most phones are sold at less than the company paid for it. Accessories (and contract replacement phones are sold at a huge markup (>50% or more) to offset some of the initial loss on the phone. If the end user can buy cheap accessories for their new phone from a third party, the cellular company is out even more, hense the non standard connectors.
If you don't believe me, go find one of Nextel's SEC filings such as this one, go to page 54 and do the math yourself. Nextel paid $2.0 billion for handsets and accessories in 2004, and sold them for $1.4 billion. (The second line relates to an accounting gimmick Nextel previously used to minimize this cost). The three following explanatory paragraphs explain that the handsets are subsidized, but accessories are sold with gross margin (not subsidized).
Nextel's subsidies might be larger than other phone companies (due to only a single supplier), but all of them sell phones at a loss.

Would you have?

Gotta think about your brokers "Best execution" of your trade

With the revenue from this, they bought a collection of domain names of marginal value. It looks like they actually paid out only only $24.6 million on cash upfront for Name Development. And even that goes into escrow for 18 months. Name Development's income for 2004 was $4.6 million.

Name Development seems to be one guy operating out of the Virgin Islands who sold click-throughs to Yahoo:

• Name Development currently earns 100% of its revenue through the outsourcing of its pay-per-click listings to one major provider, Yahoo!

Marchex is the target of spyware/adware litigation:

• On February 3, 2005, we received notice of a purported class action complaint entitled Pagniello v. Cool Web Search, Enhance Interactive, Inc., Marchex, Inc., FindWhat.com Inc., Google Inc., Yahoo/Overture Search Engine Co., Microsmarts, LLC, STOPzilla, Inc., PC Tools Pty Ltd., eBlocs.com, and Network Dynamics Corporation, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 24, 2005. The complaint alleges that the defendants have exploited web browsers and reconfigured his and others' computers by installing code on their computers without their approval or knowledge and seeks injunctive relief and damages. Based on our initial review of the complaint, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to these claims and intend to contest them vigorously. However, since the litigation is in a preliminary stage and any litigation is inherently uncertain, it is not feasible at this time to predict how this matter will proceed, what the ultimate outcome will be or whether an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our business.

I don't see how this adds up to a company with a market cap of $761 million. This looks more like a dud dot-com.

With the revenue from this, they bought a collection of domain names of marginal value. It looks like they actually paid out only only $24.6 million on cash upfront for Name Development. And even that goes into escrow for 18 months. Name Development's income for 2004 was $4.6 million.

Name Development seems to be one guy operating out of the Virgin Islands who sold click-throughs to Yahoo:

• Name Development currently earns 100% of its revenue through the outsourcing of its pay-per-click listings to one major provider, Yahoo!

Marchex is the target of spyware/adware litigation:

• On February 3, 2005, we received notice of a purported class action complaint entitled Pagniello v. Cool Web Search, Enhance Interactive, Inc., Marchex, Inc., FindWhat.com Inc., Google Inc., Yahoo/Overture Search Engine Co., Microsmarts, LLC, STOPzilla, Inc., PC Tools Pty Ltd., eBlocs.com, and Network Dynamics Corporation, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 24, 2005. The complaint alleges that the defendants have exploited web browsers and reconfigured his and others' computers by installing code on their computers without their approval or knowledge and seeks injunctive relief and damages. Based on our initial review of the complaint, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to these claims and intend to contest them vigorously. However, since the litigation is in a preliminary stage and any litigation is inherently uncertain, it is not feasible at this time to predict how this matter will proceed, what the ultimate outcome will be or whether an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our business.

I don't see how this adds up to a company with a market cap of $761 million. This looks more like a dud dot-com.

The "10-K" is the backup data behind a company's annual report. It's the single most important disclosure of a company's financial status. The SEC allows 3 months after the close of the fiscal year for a 10-K filing. SCO's year closed at the end of October, and their 10-K was due at the end of January. Late filing of a 10-K or 10-Q (the quarterly report) is considered a major red flag for a stock. When I was following dying dot-coms, a late 10-K or 10-Q was a strong indicator of trouble. Nobody files late because they have unexpectedly good numbers.

SCO filed an NT-12K form with the SEC, asking for a 15-day extension. "The Company currently anticipates that the Form 10-K will be filed by no later than the fifteenth calendar day following the date on which the Form 10-K was due." They missed that date, too.

There has to be something really embarassing in the compensation plan. Really embarassing, if they're willing to risk delisting from the NASDAQ.

Delisting kicks a stock down to the pink sheets. That's where the penny stocks favored by spammers and scammers live.

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/worldcom.htm

Yeah, after MCI is forced to pay $500M in cash and 10M in stock to investers victims of the fraud, and various people got fired, banned from holding office in any publicliy traded company, fined, sued, and had to "repay" any "ill-gotten gain."

If that's business as usual, I don't want any part of it.

For a few years now (~3 to 4), MSFT has allowed entire countries to pirate Windows XP freely for home and professional use. Countries like China, among many others in the far east, rely almost exclusively on pirated copies of XP that are purchased illegally on the street. MSFT, whether anyone likes to admit it or not, is extremely intelligent when it comes to business. They have essentially captured 100% market share in countries where 99% of the residents could not afford to purchase a $300 copy of Windows XP with an entire year's salary with this policy. You can see MSFT freely admit this activity with a little searching. Now that MSFT is allowing only legal copies of XP to be updated, they are entering the second phase of the policy in which they force these developing countries to *continue* to use XP. Anyone who thought that they might have gotten the better of MSFT by pirating is now on the losing end, as they have to shell out cash at some point in the future to stay protected from the millions of exploits/spyware/adware/pwnxed/etcetc that plague Windows. Watch in a few years when Microsoft dominates China's telecom market with the fact that everyone is using Windows.

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Which leads to the following results after playing around with the EDGAR search:

Spectrum Equity Investors, U.S. Venture Partners, Greylock, Crosslink Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Rosewood Stone Group???? , Investor AB, Technology Crossover Ventures, Insight Venture Partners, Technology Investment Capital Corp

What the guy has done with his website is interesting. Though maybe this should be put into a wiki, then maybe people can sift through all this information and post back there...

Email within a private company is not a matter of public record. One big exception is financial firms goverened by the Securities & Exchange Commission. They are required to archive business-related electronic communication for three years. This is a relatively new rule created in the wake of some high-profile accounting scandals a few years back.

By your interpretation, anyone who has ever deleted an email or failed to archive instant messages has some jail time in their future.

False. Go to the SEC website and check Microsoft's quarterly and anual financial reports. The Xbox division is part of the Home and Entertainment Division... and since the Xbox was launched in november of 2001, the Home and Entertainment division has lost over $2 billion.

Since the Home and Entertainment Division is not making more money than they are spending, and the Xbox and its games account for most of that divisions revenues and losses, it is quite clear to anyone who knows basic algebra, that Microsoft is not making any money on the Xbox.

Microsoft's last quarterly report clearly shows another loss on the Home and Entertainment Division for the quarter ending Setember 30, 2004 of $126 million on earnings from the division of $601 million. They didn't lose as much money as the same quarter of 2003 ($181 million lost), but they still lose over $100 million... yet again. If you check over their past few quarterly reports, you'll easily see the Home and Entertainment division losing over $100 million per quarter, pretty much consistently for over a year now, with a few of those quarters topping $200 million lost and one or two going over $300 million lost.

The money is in the games and licensing.

Yes, it is. Too bad Microsoft isn't actually making any money off of these things. If it wasn't for Windows and Office, they wouldn't be making the billions they make... although MSN showed a profit again, which is rare.

people who currently call themselves SCO are trying to use that name to confuse people

When I submitted this news item last night (rejected, of course), I had posted a related link. Apparently Ralsky is also in trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding a fraud scheme .

Here's a couple of other useful spam-reporting addresses:

• FDA (for Viagra etc. spam -- if it's a drug or medication being offered under its US brand name, the Food and Drug Administration enforcers want to know)
• SEC (for stock-pumping scams, hot insider tips, etc., shop them to the Securities and Exchange Commission).

Here's a couple of other useful spam-reporting addresses:

• FDA (for Viagra etc. spam -- if it's a drug or medication being offered under its US brand name, the Food and Drug Administration enforcers want to know)
• SEC (for stock-pumping scams, hot insider tips, etc., shop them to the Securities and Exchange Commission).

I like the idea because its grounded in destroying the economics that make spam profitable. Why not make it hurt more:

For example take a piece of spam advertising a site which provides no contact information and which replys on form submsissions to promote a product. Take random (but meaningful) data, such as fortune strings, delimited to smallish lengths for each field, and wget form submissions every few hours | minutes | seconds. Any legitimate inquiries are lost in (likly literally) an unceasing email bomb sponsored by lycos.The destinction here, is that rather then costing them more you are litterally losing them the tiny fraction of respondents which make spam profitable, this renders the model unprofitable and makes any attempt to offset the cost ineffective.

I take great satisfaction in ensuring that a spammers time is wasted to a greater degree then my own. Given the products that are often peddaled via spam a quick forward can often ensure this, for instance forwards to enforcement@sec.gov have resulted in six lawsuits (and counting) this month alone. There is a great forward for almost any ware, but medication, promotional stock tips, and cheap (generally pirated or edu version) software are some of the most fun - despite my dislike of Microsoft and the Government I relish the thought of their respective legal teams gunning down a newbie floridian who mistakenly purchased my address.

Lawrence F. Probst III
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer
Year Salary Bonus
2004 $672,759 $781,000
2003 $696,535 $1,100,000
2002 $611,023 $985,000

Find the rest, including salaries of other executives, HERE. Also note, this in no way covers *ALL* the compensation...just reported salaries.

Mature companies like Microsoft have switched from options (who really thinks their stock will increase enough to make their stock will increase enough to make the options valueable?)

Starting 2005, however, MS employees can resume selling which means they can bail and look for a job elsewhere without losing their options. C'mon. Do you see anyone doing anything other than bailing?

Yes, Ballmer's making all kind of noise, but security and quality problems are starting to cut into MS' bottom line. OpenOffice.org is cutting into the applications profit. Linux is cutting into their server profit and just starting to edge into the desktop arena. Areas like embedded systems have MS listed as a no-show. If litigation and a patent war don't pull things up next year, MS is out of the way for good.

According to Edgar (SEC filings), I seem to recall that 96% of google's money comes now from AdSense. It was mostly just licensing their search software in the beginning, but AdSense has really taken off. They are certainly diversifying, and I suspect revenue will soon come from different places. Their brand name is second-to-none in the online universe.

Not at all. Although advertising is still a major source of revenue, Google makes plenty of business offering enterprise solutions.

Not significantly. At least not by sources of data available to me (do you have a cite?). At least not according to their IPO and their quarterly report ending June 30:

several attempts to get a reasonable faux table, prevented by ECODE's inutility and stupid lameness filter, deleted

Revenues, by revenue source, as a percentage of total revenues three months ending June 30 2003 Total advertising revenues: 97% Licensing and other revenues: 3% three months ending June 30 2004 Total advertising revenues: 98% Licensing and other revenues: 2% six months ending June 30 2004 Total advertising revenues: 98% Licensing and other revenues: 2%

See page 21 of the above link for the nice table with that and more.

So, yes, grandparent was right, this all comes from people clicking on google text ads. Of course, grandparent shouldn't be surprised, as this isn't new information; the same information (ending in March 2004) is available on page 40 of the old IPO prospectus. The new numbers are bigger, of course, but the old numbers were not insignificant.

Not at all. Although advertising is still a major source of revenue, Google makes plenty of business offering enterprise solutions.

Not significantly. At least not by sources of data available to me (do you have a cite?). At least not according to their IPO and their quarterly report ending June 30:

several attempts to get a reasonable faux table, prevented by ECODE's inutility and stupid lameness filter, deleted

Revenues, by revenue source, as a percentage of total revenues three months ending June 30 2003 Total advertising revenues: 97% Licensing and other revenues: 3% three months ending June 30 2004 Total advertising revenues: 98% Licensing and other revenues: 2% six months ending June 30 2004 Total advertising revenues: 98% Licensing and other revenues: 2%

See page 21 of the above link for the nice table with that and more.

So, yes, grandparent was right, this all comes from people clicking on google text ads. Of course, grandparent shouldn't be surprised, as this isn't new information; the same information (ending in March 2004) is available on page 40 of the old IPO prospectus. The new numbers are bigger, of course, but the old numbers were not insignificant.

That's an April Fools joke. The date of the agreement is April 1, 2004. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/0001 19312504155723/dex10109.htm

Haven't you noticed agreement's effective date - This Limited Patent Covenant and Stand-Still Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of this 1st day of April, 2004 (the "Effective Date") See this url http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/00011931 2504155723/dex10109.htm

Oops--there's an extra space between the 1 and 2. Should have checked the link. I'l try again: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/00011931 2504155723/dex10109.htm

Quote...
According to the recently released financial documents to the SEC, besides the 900,000,000.00 being paid to Sun, a LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT was also enacted.

IV. PROVISIONS RELATING TO OPEN OFFICE

1. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, with respect solely to the product developed by Sun and generally known as Open Office, the Covenants of Section II above and the Releases of Section III above shall apply fully to Sun but shall not apply to Authorized Licensees of Open Office or any other third party. Accordingly, Microsoft shall not be foreclosed by this Agreement from seeking damages from Authorized Licensees of Open Office for copies of Open Office made or acquired prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nor shall Microsoft be foreclosed from seeking any damages from Sun, its Affiliates, Authorized Licensees or any third party for any copies of Open Office made or deployed by a User after the Effective Date.

So basically, while Microsoft will not sue Sun for any patents for the next 10 years and visa versa (Cross Licensing Agreement). Microsoft can sue anybody, including Sun over Open Office (Sun's Star Office is protected). This is probably as close as Microsoft can legally get to buying Open Office.

The rest states that Sun has to give Microsoft legal aid in bringing lawsuits against users of Open Office. Also, Microsoft will pay Sun a confidential sum for its troubles for providing that legal aid.


2. In the event that Microsoft elects to sue or otherwise seek recovery from an Authorized Licensee of Open Office for copies thereof that were made and deployed by a User prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement ("Deployed Copies"), upon request, Microsoft agrees to promptly reimburse Sun for any reimbursable Damages. Sun shall promptly notify Microsoft of any Claim, shall provide Microsoft with the opportunity to take control over and responsibility for the defense and/or settlement of such Claim, and shall reasonably cooperate with Microsoft in litigating the defense of such Claim, including in all discovery and trial preparation efforts. Microsoft will not have any obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages unless Sun abides by the foregoing requirements. Microsoft shall also be relieved of its obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages if Sun breaches any warranty in Section VII.4. As a condition to accepting control and responsibility for such defense, Microsoft shall acknowledge in writing that such third party claim constitutes a "Claim" and, as such, would give rise to Reimbursable Damages if determined adversely. In the event that Microsoft accepts control and responsibility for such defense, Sun shall be entitled to participate in such defense at its own cost. "Claim" means any claim that Sun is liable to indemnify or otherwise reimburse any Authorized Licensee or third party for damages it has been ordered to pay by final judgment or settlement arising from a claim asserted by Microsoft against such Authorized Licensee or third party that any Deployed Copy of Open Office infringes any patent of Microsoft. "Reimbursable Damages" means the amount of any adverse final judgment awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction, or Microsoft approved settlement, against Sun that is based on the Claim.

3. The Parties acknowledge that the product currently marketed by Sun as Star Office shall not be affected by this Section IV.


LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT

The Non-disclosure terms for any protocols that can interoperate with Microsoft's Client or Server software would seem to restrict a lot of functionality from being released under an open source license by Sun..

The Non-disclosure terms for any protocols that can interoperate with Microsoft's Client or Server software would seem to restrict a lot of functionality from being released under an open source license by Sun..

In (over)simplified terms, Apple just has to make an economic decision between how much a settlement would cost and how much the Apple brand is worth. If A < B, pay the settlement. If A> B, then spinoff and find a different brand to use for the music-related business.

If you believe their latest 10-Q, the Apple brand is worth about $80 million alone. I wouldn't say that "massively dwarfs" the $25+ million settlement in the first go-round with Apple Corps, but it's still a huge hunk of change.

except pump and dump is illegal, so complain about this troll correctly

http://www.sec.gov/complaint/selectconduct.shtml

Eric Karch
Eric Karch
eric.karch@lawyer.com
1221 Brickell Ave.Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131 US
+1.3053778767

Anthony Klatch
artlu@artlu.net
422 St. Rte. 93
Sugarloaf, PA 18249 US
+1.5705943028
+1.5705943028 (FAX)

Cray Research pioneered the use of vector systems, from the Cray-1 to the Cray C90 and T90 systems. These systems typically use a moderate number (one to 32) of very fast custom processors in connection with a shared memory. Vector processing has proven to be highly effective for many scientific and engineering application programs which over the years have been written to maximize the number of long vectors. Traditional vector systems do not scale effectively (that is, increase performance by increasing the number of processors) past a limited number of processors. We currently market one classic vector supercomputer, the Cray SX-6 system.

Massively parallel processing architectures typically link tens, hundreds or thousands of standard or commodity processors to act either on multiple tasks at the same time or together in concert on a single computationally-intensive task. Type T systems connect each processor directly to its own private memory and the programmer must manage the movement of data among memory units and processors. Consequently these systems can be difficult to program. Type C massively parallel systems, unlike low bandwidth clusters, have high bandwidth and low latency interconnect systems and are said to be "tightly coupled" -- the Cray T3E, Red Storm and the OctigaBay product are examples of balanced high bandwidth purpose built systems that employ standard microprocessors.

The Cray X1 system is revolutionary in that it is the first supercomputer that combines the attributes of both vector and high bandwidth massively parallel systems. The Cray X1 system has up to 64 processors per cabinet and a shared memory. The Cray X1 system can run small problems as a vector processor would or, by focusing many processors on a task, the Cray X1 system operates as a massively parallel system with a system-wide shared memory and a single-system image. The Cray X1 system is designed to provide efficient scalability and high bandwidth to run complex applications at high sustained speeds. The Cray X1E system furthers this architectural design with increased processor speed and capability.

Our MTA-2 project for NRL is designed to have sustainable high speed, be broadly applicable and easy to program, provide scalability as systems increase in size and have balanced I/O capability. The multithreading processors make the MTA-2 system latency tolerant and, with the system's flat shared memory, able to address data anywhere in the system.

Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class B common stock is entitled to ten votes per share and is convertible at any time into one share of Class A common stock.

here:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=get company&CIK=0001288776&owner=include

The S files are the interesting ones.