Slashdot Mirror

SEC contempt case is not strong. "Must pre screen all tweets" was the original demand, it was redlined and negotiated and taken out. So it is clear Tesla never agreed to pre screen ALL tweets. SEC seems to be under the impression there should be a standing panel with some board members and appointees to screen the tweets. Tesla seems to be thinking, if Elon agrees not to treat anything material, not tweet anything during trading hours, there is no need to pre screen, just a post screen to issue clarification before trading resumes.

The particular complaint against Tesla is a violation of the settlement that says, "Tesla will establish a new committee of independent directors and put in place additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk’s communications". So, the question is whether Tesla instituted "additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk's communications". I suppose that Tesla could have perfunctorily instituted controls and procedures that it knew would not oversee Musk's communications. Perhaps Tesla thought that oversee means to simply observe without any actual control. Maybe Tesla thought that it would be the final arbiter of what constitutes material information. Unfortunately for Tesla, the court gets to be the final arbiter.

The particular tweet seems to be very immaterial, not much to hang its coat on.

The particular quote from Feb 19 is "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019." There's no question that that statement is material. Saying "Tesla's a great company!" is not material, but stating specific numbers that are usually stated during a quarterly report is obviously material.

Oy. Here, I'll do the homework for both of you:

Total Offering Amount $499,999,992 USD
Total Amount Sold $273,199,776 USD
Total Remaining to be Sold $226,800,216 USD

Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...

They were only able to raise about half of what they needed so far. Either they didn't wait until it closed at the full amount because they needed the currently raised money asap and then hoped more would come. Or less ominously, there simply was no more interest in the offering and decided to wrap it up.

Now that the logjam has been cleared, you may now both proceed with your spin.

While not on the verge of bankruptcy, it will never be a cash generating machine in the current competitive environment.

That is not true at all. Amazon retail generates HUGE cash flow. Amazon's operating cash flow is enormous. Amazon also has a negative cash conversion cycle, meaning they pay their suppliers WEEKS later than they get paid. Very few companies achieve this happy state of affairs and none of their major competitors (including Walmart) can match them on this.

Don't confuse operating cash flow with profit. Amazon generates excellent operating cash flow but then they plow it back into the company to grow so their profit margins look weak.

AWS is a high margin monster with limited competition and a high degree of lock-in and network effects. These tend to be sustainable sources of value/returns.

All true as well though I disagree that there is limited competition. Google and Microsoft are pretty serious competitors and they aren't the only ones.

As of right now, anyone investing in AWS has to take the risk that AWS profits will be funneled off to cover losses in Amazon's retail business

Amazon makes nearly as much profit from their US retail business as they do from AWS. Don't take my word for it, see their financial statements. The only place they are losing money is their international retail business which they are trying to grow with mixed results. In 2017 Amazon made a profit of $2.8B from their retail operations, $4.3B from AWS and lost about $3B in international operations which was increased substantially from the previous year due to infrastructure investments. (in 2016 their international ops only lost $1.2B)

It is not uncommon for conglomerates to be worth more separate than together.

Amazon isn't a conglomerate in the traditional sense like GE or Siemens. You are correct but sometimes the whole is greater than the parts. See Berkshire Hathaway...

which is about 260,000 times less than the $28,446 the median Amazon employee made in 2017 according to Amazon's SEC filing. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...

Fraud is clearly characterized. The complaint spells it all out:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation...

There was no term sheet. No 8-Ks were filed. The Saudis and VW denied they were in any specific talks. The tweet was solely intended to force shorts to cover.

"Legally he isn't allowed to talk about taking the company private to anyone without a need to know about the transaction. If he said the same thing at a party instead of tweeting it, same result."

This is partially inaccurate since Twitter isn't private. If his tweet was true he wouldn't be getting punished. Insider trading rules are meant to ensure that accurate information that can materially affect investments gets disclosed publicly to all parties at once, so telling people at a party prior to public disclosure would be a violation of the rules. Normally public disclosure is done via a press release or SEC filing, but the SEC ruled that social media can qualify as public disclosure if the company has indicated they may use such sources for disclosures. I recall reading somewhere that Tesla had previously indicated that Musk's Twitter account was an official communication channel.

From the SEC website, right in the middle of the home page:

We inform and protect consumers

Meaning, they care about consumers' rights, not the corporations, and they make sure that consumers are aware of their rights.

We facilitate capital formation

Meaning they are involved in the sales of securities - you have to tell them what is happening. That makes sure they can follow up on item number one.

We enforce federal securities laws

Like those that Musk broke. No clause about "unless we think it could hurt other people, in which case we ignore the law"

We regulate securities markets

Yep, you cannot sell or offer to buy securities without following the rules. You can't just go an announce made-up data like Musk did, especially when it would damage the market - as Musk's tweet did (fraudulently driving the stock price up).

We provide data

Yep, you have to report your data in GAAP standard format and calculations, which show Tesla losing billions of dollars. Not in the fantasy-land accounting that Tesla used to use (and many of its most vocal supporters here use) that show it is "making a profit".

Break the law, go to jail. Or in this case, lose tens of millions of dollars and be banned from controlling interest in companies - because that is what is best for the market. Stability, reliability, fairness. Not fraud.

The SEC says your wrong: Elon Musk Charged with Securities Fraud for Misleading Tweets - straight from the SEC.

Good grief, even the SEC says that Musk is "Charged with Securities Fraud for Misleading Tweets". So you know better than the SEC? Sorry - you're wrong.

The phrase "civil charges" is in wide use, including by the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press... I agree with laypeople it carries the connotation of criminal charges.

True, but it also says, "Fraud" which is a criminal offense. The actual rule violated is "17 CFR 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices."

The phrase "civil charges" is in wide use, including by the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press...

I agree with laypeople it carries the connotation of criminal charges.

From their own mouth (Alphabet Inc 2016 SEC 10-K filing)

Our innovations in areas like search and advertising have made our services widely used, and our brand one of the most recognized in the world. We generate revenues primarily by delivering online advertising that consumers find relevant and that advertisers find cost-effective.

Just look at page 24 and you will see that in 2016 Google had $90B in revenue... $79B of which was advertising revenue.

losing billions to sell thousands... When does it stop?

The first "stop" occurs when you get your facts right. . . 2018Q2 Rev: $4B, Net Loss; $0.7B, YTD Rev growth:43%. Go find me a mature company that is always profitable that increased their revenues by 43% in the last year. . .

The second "stop" occurs after Tesla goes private, and all the crazy short sellers go after some new victim (if they have not already killed themselves off after their bad bet against Tesla). At that point, you will have less public information to (mis)-inform yourself with, so your only reminder of how wrong you were at this point of your life will be steady and unrelenting electrification of the transportation system (with many Tesla logos passing by in your peripherals every where you go. . .).

The 3rd "stop" occurs after the electrification of the transportation market and the transition of the electrical grid to renewable energy sources backed with battery based storage. At this point, Tesla growth will have peaked, and it will now have to become another slow growing giant that no one ever posts about in forums like Slashdot. . .

That article is wrong based on the underlying linked SEC report on on the notes, either the author didn't read it properly or didn't expect their readers to read it properly. The note holder has the option to convert to stock until a couple days before maturity; the base conversion rate is 2.7788 per $1000 principal (which translates to about $360), but the conversion rate is increased depending upon the stock price given in table 9.03(e), with more shares given for stock prices at the cutoff of $252.54 per share. It gives the same breakeven point on the March 1, 2019 at the prices per share between $252.54 and $359.87.

The timing and reporting issues are listed in 9.01(b), for the listed major company changes (like liquidation) Tesla has to give notification at least 30 trading days in advance.

Frankly, that article set off by BS alarms causing me to look at the supporting material, since it sounded like this conversion was structured as a bonus to lenders if the stock price went really high, not as a way to dodge unforeseen financing trouble years ahead of time. The note holder captures upside to stock prices above $360 from the conversion. Presumably they structured it this way to improve how much money Tesla got up front for selling the notes in the 2013 or 2014 timeframe, and they were willing to trade away some of the upside if the price per share went above $360.

Could be 300 : https://www.sec.gov/fast-answe...

So basically the shareholders would have to vote to eliminate their shareholdings, unless they're a large institutional investor in which case they'll be fucking delighted to screw over the small shareholders.

Whether they want to hold shares it's difficult to trade is a more interesting question.

When I sell shares in my Fidelity account, the brokerage holds my money for 3-5 days.

Trades take 3 days to settle. (They used to take 5.) That's true for anybody, not just you. A broker may not give you your money until then because, to put it simply, they may not have it. They're waiting for the guy who bought your shares to pay them. (And maybe so is his broker.) The buyer has -- you guessed it -- three days to put the money in his account with his broker.

Your broker might also be waiting for you to deposit the shares in your account. You can sell shares without them being there yet (but may need to put them there in three days unless you want to go short.) In fact, in certain situations, you can still make trades on money that hasn't settled. You must be careful about this in order to avoid cash/margin/good faith/freeloader violations, or being identified as a pattern day-trader. And lots of brokers will sweep your money from a trade immediately (or at least the next day) into your interest-bearing core cash position. I'm a Fidelity customer, and I'm pretty sure this is true for them.

I understand this may all sound moot because many traders have cash accounts, in which you must have the money or shares present at the time of the trade in order to effect the transaction. But the settlement rules have existed for awhile, and have been designed to protect all parties, not just the big shots.

https://www.sec.gov/reportspub...

... of a public company (SEC statement, but I guess that doesn't mean she can't wander around and raise money for anything else as a private company representative...?

Elon Musk is trying to save humanity. His endgame goal is to use all the money generated by his various companies and invest it in getting us the hell off this planet before we destroy ourselves. Considering politics these days, I hope he hurries up.

I am sorry for being so cynical, but that isn't how it works. If that was really what Musk was doing it would be a con game of the first order and he would need to go to prison. The investors are entitled to answers, and considerable say in how the money they invested in Musk's venture is being managed. This isn't a Bernie Madoff 'trust me' enterprise.

You're sorry all right, because that is precisely how it works. Tesla's public mission statement states in no uncertain terms that it is to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible." The company bylaws do not require maximization of profit, nor does the certificate of incorporation. The investors are entitled to answers, and they got them. Musk let them know that he is continuing to follow Tesla Motors' mission, and if they don't like it, they should not buy Tesla stock. They are only entitled to answers which support Tesla's publicly-avowed mission. If they don't want stock in a company whose purpose is to promote EV adoption, then they should not buy stock in that company.

TL;DR: They are entitled to answers, but they are not entitled to the answers they want.

Try looking at their numbers and see if it makes more sense
http://getfilings.com/o0001193...

Little difficult to make money with all that debt payment they didn't have before.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...

In 2005 they had $47m in long term debt. As of October 2017 it was $4.761B. Please explain to me how they acquired and additions 4+ billion in debt? Might it happen to have anything to do with a $7.5B buyout would it?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

If you read anything from the CFTC or SEC from the last year on the subject (include the statement this article is based on) you will see this is applicable to ICOs (which they view as securities) and not to Bitcoin, Litecoin or other "normal" cryptocurrencies (which they do not consider securities).

There is a monetary reward for those who report SEC violations if the violations are ultimately proved true and defendants are convicted.

citation

As part of the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward, Dodd-Frank's bounty provisions award 10-30% of the money recovered from a securities violation to the whistleblower that first reported the violation to the SEC, for sanctions of $1 million or more.

If the employee doesn't think the situation is clear-cut enough to have a shot at cashing in on that bounty and yet chooses to raise it internally in the company, there's no reason the government should be in the position of protecting their job. To do otherwise would at the very least create a perverse incentive for employees to try to blackmail their employers over conduct they know or suspect isn't really a SEC violation but will cost the company a lot of time and money to defend to reach that result.

Report it quickly to the SEC if you want the SOX whistleblower protection. If you wait on reporting it, you may not get whistleblower protections for waiting too long.

Maybe this will make people report crimes quicker and not wait until they are fired for a lawsuit, screwing over investors.

https://www.sec.gov/whistleblo...

I think they might be overstepping their charter a bit. About the SEC from the horses mouth. I guess someone with too much money that happens to know someone high up, and owned one of the effected phones got all butt hurt.

You need to personally gain to be accused of insider trading.

That isn't entirely correct. One can do insider trading to prevent a loss as well as get a gain. The definition from the SEC:

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

The next paragraph relates to the current issue:

Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:

Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;

Friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;

Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;

Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and

Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers

The link from the SEC

or the fact that Disney splits box-office grosses with theater owners.

How many times have I read that the reason for the very high food prices is that the theaters don't get keep revenue from the ticket sales? Is this not true? Have we been lied to and the reason the food prices are so high is simply that people will pay the absurd prices?

As an example, Regal Cinemas: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
Admissions (ticket sales) was $1,454M while Film Rental was $785M. So out of ticket sales, they kept slightly less than half. Concessions was "only" $553M. But the whole business, after all the expenses, made $175M. On $2,158M total revenues that's just 8%. So, yes, theatres turn a profit but at 8% they aren't exactly fleecing viewers with absurd prices.

I'm not sure if that qualifies as insider trading

Of course it does. Any time an employee trades stock in the company he's employed by, that's insider trading because the employee is an "insider". Most of the time, it's perfectly legal.

From SEC.gov: "Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security." And that is what happened here, because the trading happened before the public was made aware of the breach.

Don't know which counts (3 out of 8) he is convicted... Anyone can take a look at the SEC filing if interested...

Fidelity is mentioned 44 times here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... . But I suspect the information one needs to fully understand the agreement between Fidelity and Blue Apron is in the referenced and non-public "Investor's Rights Agreement". The article certainly doesn't make it clear what documents it referenced to draw its conclusions or how to detect such hidden agreements in future offerings.

It looks like people are investing money to obtain an interest in an item with no practical use other than as an investment

I am reminded of https://xkcd.com/1494/

ICO = illegal security and are generally scams = https://www.sec.gov/news/press... You get no stake and their is a strong incentive for the company to fail even if it has the best of intentions

https://www.reuters.com/articl...

https://www.sec.gov/litigation...

You can't compare that to Americans traveling to Canada to buy beer. Canadian bars aren't subject to US law and aren't doing any business in the USA.

Sure I can. After all, Google France SarL, Google India Private Limited, and Google Japan Inc. aren't doing business in Canada and thus shouldn't be subject to Canadian law, right?

Google is doing business in Canada.

Are they? You glossed right over the distinction I made about branches. While it's true that "Google" is in Canada, it's not Google proper. Instead, it's Google Canada Corporation, one of their many subsidiaries. While that subsidiary may be subject to Canadian law, Google's worldwide subsidiaries are no more subject to Canadian law than Canadian bars are subject to American law.

I'd not be be surprised if Google was actually a Delaware company, merely having offices in SV...

Let's check. Duh. A big US company not incorporated in Delaware? Ain't such thing.

Alibaba info here: http://alibaba.newshq.business... under Full Fiscal Year 2016 Operational and Financial Results
Amazon info here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...

• Mar 1998: IPO
• Dec 1999: Stock price growth of 1005.8% over IPO price as at 31 Dec
• Dec 2000: Down 55%
• Sept 2001: Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
• Dec 2001: Down 99.8%
• Early 2003: Last trade at 1 penny/share

* See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e...

All the constraints the SEC put on it preclude it from being of much use - https://www.sec.gov/info/small...

DERPA DERPA DEMOCRAT DERP

Quality contribution there. Did you know that "subprime mortgage" is specifically defined as "mortgage not backed by Fannie or Freddie"? Fannie and Freddie insured ZERO subprime mortgages and had absolutely no financial problems at all until after the credit freeze when companies started shutting down and laying off hundreds of thousands of employees who had prime mortgages (and could afford them, until they lost their job?)

Even more BULLSHIT

Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point

Whenever competitors asked Congress to rein in the company, lawmakers were besieged with letters and phone calls from angry constituents, some orchestrated by Fannie itself. One automated phone call warned voters: “Your congressman is trying to make mortgages more expensive. Ask him why he opposes the American dream of home ownership.”

The ripple effect of Fannie’s plunge into riskier lending was profound. Fannie’s stamp of approval made shunned borrowers and complex loans more acceptable to other lenders, particularly small and less sophisticated banks.

Not only that, they lied about it:

SEC CHARGES FORMER FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EXECUTIVES WITH SECURITIES FRAUD

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

...

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

...

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

...

Fannie Mae's executives also knew and approved of the decision to underreport Fannie Mae's Alt-A loan exposure, the SEC alleged. Fannie Mae disclosed that its March 31, 2007 exposure to Alt-A loans was 11 percent of its portfolio of Single Family loans. In reality, Fannie Mae's Alt-A exposure at that time was approximately 18 percent of its Single Family loan holdings.

One in five of Fannie Mae's loans were sub-prime.

Who's the derp now, derp?

The faster the trading, the worse the swings will get.

The SEC's investigation into the 2010 Flash Crash, came to the exact opposite conclusion: that HFTs have a stabilizing influence on markets by providing liquidity. One of the reasons for the crash was that when prices moved outside of the expected range, many HFTers stopped trading, and the resulting drop in liquidity, and rise in spreads, caused some investors to panic.

I'm not seeing the statement that " HFTs have a stabilizing influence on markets by providing liquidity" in the SEC report for the big flash crash of 2010, nor statements to that effect. https://www.sec.gov/news/studi...
It's full of statements like this:

In general, however, it appears that the 17 HFT firms traded with the price trend on May 6 and, on both an absolute and net basis,
removed significant buy liquidity from the public quoting markets during the downturn.

However, for those who don't want to read the report, in no way is the SEC suggesting "the crash was caused by HFT traders".

Here is a recent SEC paper on HFT trading:
https://www.sec.gov/marketstru...
Regarding the benefits of HFT on the market, the research they analyzed suggests good benefits (increase liquidity and reduce volatility), but it depends.
The benefits of passive HFT strategies seem to be quite positive and HFT's may be taking the place of market makers.
Aggressive HFT strategies provide liquidity in stable markets, but has worsened volatility when the market experiences abberations

The faster the trading, the worse the swings will get.

The SEC's investigation into the 2010 Flash Crash, came to the exact opposite conclusion: that HFTs have a stabilizing influence on markets by providing liquidity. One of the reasons for the crash was that when prices moved outside of the expected range, many HFTers stopped trading, and the resulting drop in liquidity, and rise in spreads, caused some investors to panic.

I'm not seeing the statement that " HFTs have a stabilizing influence on markets by providing liquidity" in the SEC report for the big flash crash of 2010, nor statements to that effect. https://www.sec.gov/news/studi...
It's full of statements like this:

In general, however, it appears that the 17 HFT firms traded with the price trend on May 6 and, on both an absolute and net basis,
removed significant buy liquidity from the public quoting markets during the downturn.

However, for those who don't want to read the report, in no way is the SEC suggesting "the crash was caused by HFT traders".

Here is a recent SEC paper on HFT trading:
https://www.sec.gov/marketstru...
Regarding the benefits of HFT on the market, the research they analyzed suggests good benefits (increase liquidity and reduce volatility), but it depends.
The benefits of passive HFT strategies seem to be quite positive and HFT's may be taking the place of market makers.
Aggressive HFT strategies provide liquidity in stable markets, but has worsened volatility when the market experiences abberations

Actually, I am counting on good old capitalist greed -- or, more politely, people voting with their dollars for projects they deem useful and significant -- per the SEC, "The final rules, Regulation Crowdfunding, permit individuals to invest in securities-based crowdfunding transactions subject to certain investment limits." http://www.sec.gov/news/pressr... National boundaries are becoming less of a barrier. Work where you want, invest where you will. If you like sparky things, there will be a way to convert them into sparkly things. Life is short, study hard. All else will follow.

Per an earlier agreement by SunTrust the severance package was a lump sum $100,000, I'd probably sign it

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed...

Seems that they have been doing this for 6 years at least. Looks like a "standard template"... see section 8.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed...

It's applying it to a French company, Google France SarL. Actually if you look here you can see that there are quite a few Google companies in the EU, who must obey EU laws.

Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube.

Incorrect. Youtube LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc. Large companies routinely are composed of a large number of smaller entities and Google is no exception. Youtube is ALSO a product but it is a corporation too.

They are just products offered by Google. They don't need to sublicense it to move it form one service or another.

Also incorrect. Just because both corporate entities are owned by the same company does not mean they automatically share the same rights or licensing to property.

As per US security and Exchange commission, "On August 10, 2015, Google Inc. (“Google”) announced plans to create a new public holding company, Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”), and a new operating structure to increase management scale and focus on its consolidated businesses. Under the new operating structure, its main Google business will include search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube and Android and the related technical infrastructure (the “Google business”). Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms, such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business." Also another info, it has xyz domain. It shows Google's best Easter Egg too...

Here's the SEC Filing that got the ball rolling on this unfortunate situation.
There's also some info in the WSJ writeup.

Their CFO had left in April and their Chief Accounting Officer just resigned ... unknown how those relate to what happened.

Bummer to see this happen to Ubiquiti as they seem like a good company.

If, on the other hand, you want the Google Play store, then you have to pay Google

Wrong. See clause 4.1 of the Android distribution agreement. No money changes hands in either direction.

They already are. Here is some legal stuff stating Intel licensing copyright of x86 instructions to AMD:

3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intelâ(TM)s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed...

It is therefore logical that Google should also obtain a license to use Oracle's Java API.

You are aware that Android is currently dominating the mobile market?

You'd have to live under a rock to not know how Android is doing. What is your point? Google makes virtually no money from Android directly.

You're also quite wrong. Google have a huge stake in GIS and have become one of the worlds leading imagery providers, so much to the point that they now have their own satellites (GeoEYE).

Which is entirely consistent with their search driven advertising business. That's not a distraction. That's a core business for them and really it is a cost center. They bought that so that they could enhance their local search.

Google is extremely diversified, so much so they could survive the complete destruction of their advertisement business.

Google is barely diversified at all. You haven't actually looked at any of their financial statements. Google makes close to 95% of their revenue from advertising. Fourth quarter 2014 they made $46 billion in revenue and $43.6 of that came from advertising. Google would be bankrupt if their advertising business disappeared.

If you want to see what an actual diversified company looks like go look at Berkshire Hathaway or General Electric. Hell, even Microsoft is more diversified than Google. Despite all the hype, Google is pretty much a one trick pony. It's a REALLY good trick but they don't have a second one right now. Their main saving grace is that they have so much cash in the bank that they could buy their way into a new line of business if they needed to. But they haven't developed anything in house that meaningfully changes the fact that virtually all their revenue comes from advertising.