Bill Gates Fined $800,000 Over Stock Purchases

Bronz writes "CNN Money is reporting that Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 for violating antitrust waiting period for stock purchases. The department alleged that Gates bought more than $50 million worth of stock in ICOS Corp. through his personal investment trust and failed to notify antitrust officials about the purchase, as required." It's also clarified: "The technical incident has nothing to do with the government's massive antitrust battles with Microsoft."

Comments

So what?

[Lord Kano]

It's not like doesn't have the money. Fining him 800k is like fining me 5$.

LK

Re:So what?

[garcia]

Uhh, the fine isn't what is important. What is important is the fact that he (or his advisors) made this mistake in the first place.

$800k is $800k. Worth only $40 billion at this point it is a larger chunk than when he was valued at twice that much.

Re:So what?

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

It's important to note that the violations CONTINUE. And let's face it - this money doesn't go to feed or clothe poor people - it goes....where DOES it go?

Speaking of abusing the system - check my sig.

Re:So what?

[Black Rabbit]

More like 5 cents!

Re:So what?

[Nuclear Elephant]

Vendor Trinkets.

Re:So what?

[Short Circuit]

this money doesn't go to feed or clothe poor people

How do you know that? Have you ever heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Not that I like Bill by any stretch. He justifies tyranny in one respect with philanthropy in other areas.

Re:So what?

[XMyth]

Shouldn't your sig be "life IS a repetitve stress injury" ?

Re:So what?

[Lugor]

I can picture it..
DOJ: Sir..

BG Worth: +$1,000k
Gates: Yes???

BG Worth: +$1,000k x 3 secs
DOJ: You didn't fill out some forms

BG Worth: +$1,000k x 10 secs
Gates: How much to pay you off?

BG Worth: +$1,000k x 15 secs
DOJ: 800k

BG Worth: +$1,000k x 2 secs
Gates: Ok

BG Worth: +$1,000k
CNN then reports "In a 30 second conversation Bill Gates made 30 million in interest and paid 800k in fines..."

Re:So what?

[Bob Uhl]

You're worth $250,000? That fine for Bill Gates is equivalent to 70 cents for me. I don't think that he's hurting.

Re:So what?

[xkenny13]

It's not like doesn't have the money. Fining him 800k is like fining me 5$.

The fine is not based on how much you make, or how much you are worth (such as setting bail amounts) ... but rather how much money you fraudulently made (or how much loss you avoided).

Typically, the fine is up to three times the profit you made (or loss you avoided).

Here's an interesting page (PDF) on the subject. Review section 3.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

so what does your sig say? i have them turned off and i dont want to take 30 seconds to undo it just to look at your sig. nothing personal just sigs suck.

Re:So what?

[Lord Kano]

The fine is not based on how much you make, or how much you are worth (such as setting bail amounts) .

True enough, but the punative value is very much linked to your net worth.

If you can make $800k in less than one day, it doesn't mean much to you.

I haven't earned that much in the last 10 years. So to me, $800 is a lot more money than it is to BillG.

LK

Re:So what?

[Phurd Phlegm]

Conservatively estimating at 5% per annum, Gates only makes around $180,000 per hour in interest. Of course, with 4% inflation, it's really only around $46,000 per hour. That means they fined him over 17 hours of income. Now that's gotta hurt. That's the equivalent of almost two hundred bucks for someone making $100K a year.

That's why corporal punishment is so much fairer. . . .

Re:So what?

[gfxguy]

The fine... someone gets fined $800k or a million dollars... where does that money go?

I imagine it goes to supporting the entity that discovered and prosecuted the problem, but I could be wrong. Afterall, taxes on cigarettes are supposed to go for healthcare, right? And taxes on gasoline go to transportation infrastructure, right? Right?

It just gets sucked into the big government void.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe fines like that should be a percentage of the stock value involved (10% of $50M is $5M) or percentage of net worth of the offender (1% of $40B is $40M, even half a percent for $20M), numbers like that might move the fine out of the "cost of doing business" catagory.

Re:So what?

[Uber Banker]

Inflation isn't 4% per annum (or even annualised), you know?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does inflation make? The $800,000 doesn't change.

Re:So what?

[The_K4]

What we really need now is sig moderation followed with a healthy does of sig meta-moderation!

Re:So what?

[xkenny13]

• The fine is not based on how much you make, or how much you are worth (such as setting bail amounts) .
  
  True enough, but the punative value is very much linked to your net worth.

Three times the profit you made (or loss you avoided) should be the punative value.

Look at it this way, if you were worth $100,000, and you misfiled your paperwork which netted you a cool $1,200 ... do you think it's fair to fine you $25,000 over that?

• If you can make $800k in less than one day, it doesn't mean much to you.
• 
  
  I haven't earned that much in the last 10 years. So to me, $800 is a lot more money than it is to BillG.

I'm not disagreeing that $800K is pocket change to Bill Gates ... however, the punishment still needs to fit the crime.

Re:So what?

[rjelks]

I wish I had enough money to be fined 800k. Wow.

Re:So what?

[klui]

Let's see. According to CNN, on May 2002, when Gates acquired the $50M shares, stock was worth around $25. Now it's around $32. If he hadn't sold any, that stock would be worth around $64M today. Earn $14M illegally and pay $800K. If I were Gates, I would continue doing this. The important thing is the fine is not an incentive to make Gates from doing something similar in the future.

Re:So what?

[op00to]

What? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is philanthropy in the same way that Oscar Meyer handing out periodic tables with "bolognium"... Wait, that was on the Simpsons. But it's the same thing.

Re:So what?

[larkost]

Ah... America's rich tradition of robber barons becoming philanthropists... Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller just to name a few. To many people of the time these men were the personification of everything wrong with those in power (and to some the Devil incarnate), but their names now live on in their philanthropic works. Bill Gates is simply following in their footsteps.

Re:So what?

[antiMStroll]

Will that be Visa or Mastercard, Mr. Gates?

Re:So what?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I wish I had enough money to be fined 800k.

Just go trade a few songs on Kazaa and you'll get a short letter from some nice people. They'll be more than happy to fine you at least that much...

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget if Mr. Bill owns about 1 or 2 BILLION shares of Microsoft stock (less the amount given to various charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), so if MSFT ticks up or down by only 1 cent on the NASDAQ then his overall worth changes by 10 or 20 million dollars.

So how big does $800,000 look compared to THAT?

Re:So what?

[poot_rootbeer]

Gates only makes around $180,000 per hour in interest

Or he would, if the entirety of his $40Billion in assets were liquid. In reality, most of his worth is tied up in (M$ and other) stock, which he can't touch without paradoxically causing it to lose value.

[That fine is] the equivalent of almost two hundred bucks for someone making $100K a year.

And if someone making $100K a year got a $200 parking ticket, do you think they'd start being more careful about where they park, or would they write it off as "the cost of parking" and keep parking in front of the hospital?

Re:So what?

[The Lynxpro]

"It's not like doesn't have the money. Fining him 800k is like fining me 5$"

Nah. Considering his wealth, it is like a trip to the vending machine to buy a soda for you and me.

To me, it is just plain weird that his $50 billion + in wealth is based upon him owning less than 10% in stock of a company [Microsoft] that has nearly $60 billion in the bank. That translates into owning a fraction claim to that $60 billion being almost equal to that same dollar figure sitting in the bank. I think that is a paradox. But I guess that's why I wasn't an Econ major.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Troll? When exactly the same comment by a non-AC is at +3 insightful? I look forward to when you get meta-moderated straight to hell.

Re:So what?

[Lugor]

Good point.. however.. he sits around and twiddles his thumb for 17hours and makes up the fine. I on the otherhand have to work.. such as making interesting and poignant /. comments.

Re:So what?

[4of12]

but their names now live on in their philanthropic works.

Only because philanthropy is a way to avoid the government taking half of the estate upon your death.

Give it away to the charity of your choice or let the government take half upon your death.

It's not like you get to take it with you when you go:)

All the hand-wringing about "death taxes" is such bullshit.

Bill Gates Sr., one of many, thinks that the ideas floating around to eliminate the current high inheritance taxes are a bad idea and would be devastating to charities.

Low inheritance taxes preserves an effective nobility and leisure class that will use an accident of birth to make a living as a shareholder. Arguably the builders of wealth should obtain such benefits - not their progeny. Descendents should be provided equal opportunity to compete based on their own merits and talents.

Re:So what?

[Lord Kano]

I think Bill's net worth has a bit to do with the fact that Microsoft nets millions of $ per day in profit.

Even 1% of the stock in such a profit machine is a bundle.

LK

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is important is the fact that he (or his advisors) made this mistake in the first place.

Why not simply do this paperwork for all his stock transactions? It might be cheaper to do it routinely than to have someone spend time figuring out whether to file it.

Is someone trying to keep Gates' activity private, despite the detail that tossing this much money around is hard to hide? Is someone trying to save money by not filing that form? Is it required that the form not be filed except when necessary?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if someone making $100K a year got a $200 parking ticket, do you think they'd start being more careful about where they park, or would they write it off as "the cost of parking" and keep parking in front of the hospital?

I'd write it off as the cost of parking. The trouble are those god damn speeding tickets where you gather enough "points" to lose your license. Fucking nazis.

Re:So what?

[Short Circuit]

Here in Grand Rapids, MI, we've got the Van Andel Arena, the Van Andel Institute, and the Van Andel Museum.

I don't use the Arena, and never heard of the Institute until I googled for Van Andel, but the museum is pretty cool. I've got a family member who provided the artifacts for an exhibit, and my name is on one of those doner-bricks in the main hall.

As for Jay Van Andel, well, he was a founding member of Amway.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the equivalent of almost two hundred bucks for someone making $100K a year.

No, it's the equivalent of almost two hundred bucks for someone receiving $100k a year in interest on investments. $200 has a much bigger impact on somebody who has to work 40 hours a week for that $100k.

Re:So what?

[Phurd Phlegm]

Inflation isn't 4% per annum (or even annualised), you know?

Maybe if you're Bill Gates it isn't, but the price of food, fuel, insurance, and books seems to be climbing a lot faster than the gummint says. I wanted to be conservative instead of inflammatory.

Well, if that was true, I'd have commented on another thread....

Re:So what?

[twbecker]

Low inheritance taxes preserves an effective nobility and leisure class that will use an accident of birth to make a living as a shareholder. Arguably the builders of wealth should obtain such benefits - not their progeny. Descendents should be provided equal opportunity to compete based on their own merits and talents.

I can't believe I just read this. So the government gets to decide what YOUR family can and cannot pass along to you? I find the mere notion of that offensive. Low death taxes may well result in some folks enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor (their fathers for example), but the idea that the government should level the playing field with some sort of tax is socialistic at best and downright theivery at worst. Should Uncle Sam take material possessions too, comrade? After all, they could be liquidated and the money from them could put someone ahead!! The horror.

Re:So what?

[nettdata]

The purchase of the stock wasn't illegal... it was his failure to report the purchase that brought on the fine. There was nothing illegal about the $14M in potential profit.

I find it very unlikely that the reporting of his purchase would have had any negative effects on the stock price, so I don't really think that there is any connection between him paying the $800k and his profit.

It still looks like he paid the $800k for no apparent reason, at least in this case.

I agree with your point in general, though, in that the fines are nothing more than a "cost of doing business" in a lot of cases.

Re:So what?

[cowscows]

Listen, admitting potential problems of pure capitalism does not equal communism. Just like anti-trust legislation, inheritance tax exists for the greater good of the country's citizens at large.

Let's just assume that Bill Gates earned all his money through his skills in business and computers or whatever. This large pile of wealth makes him a very powerful person. Is it necessarily in the best interests of our country to have that much power pass on to his kids, just because they happen to be his kids?

I went to college with a bunch of assholes who refused to believe that they deserved anything less than everything they wanted, just because their parents had big bank accounts. And none of them were from billionaire families.

And it's not like the government is going to take all of the money. If they took two thirds of it, there's still billions to be spread around. Some people are going to inherit way more money than I can ever imagine having.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

$40,000,000,000 / $800,000? That's $50,000 to $1 dude. Quite a small chunk. Sure it's larger than $100k to $1, but still... it's nothing.

That would be like fining me $0.006 (yes, I really only have $300). I would laugh and just pay $0.01.

Re:So what?

[primus_sucks]

I don't think giving something away that you have more of that you can possibly use deserves any recognition. Call me a commie, but I think it's shameful to have $40 billion laying around, live in a 40000 sq/ft house, etc., when there is so much suffering in the world.

Re:So what?

[ghjm]

Right, it just gets sucked into the big government void. And if this hadn't happened, it would otherwise have been sucked into the big Bill Gates / Microsoft void. Why is one better than the other?

Re:So what?

[AyeRoxor!]

It's not like doesn't have the money. Fining him 800k is like fining me 5$.

800k is 2 hundred-thousandths of a percent of his estimated value of 40 billion.

(40,000,000,000 * 0.00002 = 800,000)
ergo
(800,000 / 0.00002 = 40,000,000,000)

So, if the fine divided .00002 = a person's worth, and you were fined 5 dollars, you would be worth $250,000. While many people own $250,000 worth of property (as in everything paid off), statistically,
I'd say it's unlikely that you do. I sure as hell don't. But at 26, I'm working on it ;-)

Maybe I could be a math professor....

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus? Linus?

Why are you dragging "Peanuts" cartoon characters into this? Haven't they suffered enough already?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that 40 billion could buy a lot of euthansia.

Re:So what?

[Jackal82277]

Following in their foot steps ?
Dude last year Bill Gates gave 8 billion in stock to his charity which is designed to put computers in every class room in America. I wonder what OS these systems will be using ? When those OS's need to be upgraded I wonder if that will be free to the schools as well. And I'm not sure if every kid in America growing up using Microsoft products is a good thing or a bad thing when it comes to the future of his company. This guy Bill Gates thinks about every move he makes, and he sees things in a different light than the rest of us. A small part of that philanthropy is actually philanthropy, most of it is an investment in the future.

Re:So what?

[markttu]

Only if your net worth is $250,000.00

Re:So what?

[roman_mir]

Just because they are assholes does not mean that the government is playing a fair game here.

Is it necessarily in the best interests of our country to have that much power pass on to his kids, just because they happen to be his kids? - why should it matter what is in the best interests of a country? If I was so rich and wouldn't have any family members left after me for example, I would make sure that the country got exactly 0 (zero, null, nada, zilch, zip...) of my money upon my death by either donating the money to some cause I favoured or by simply selling everything, cashhing out and burning the money in a huge freaking bonefire with me in the middle.

On the other hand if there were people who I wanted to leave the money to, I would just move most of the money to offshore accounts in trust of a corporation, into whatever stocks, bonds and would instruct lawyers to take out divident + other payments writing out certified checks payable to the people I want to have the money every day.

The bottom line is - find every way possible to go around the stupid taxes.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Estate taxes as a replacement to income taxes would be fine by me. Makes a lot of sense. Never going to happen though (as a lot of politicians have family money and those don't are going to be bribed).

Re:So what?

[twbecker]

Who says it's in our best interests to allow HIM to have that much power? I can tell you for a fact that no one asked me first, how about you? The point is, it's NOT our nor the governments place to "appropriate" BG's wealth so that his kin can't use it to exert undue influence over whatever. In all honesty I'm a moderate, getting moreso everyday in fact. But for any outside entity to tell someone what they can and can't bequeath to their heirs under the guise of society's best interest's is wrong, IMHO.

Re:So what?

[pottymouth]

"Get off your high fucking horse. Gates is not Satan. Linus is not god. You are, however, a complete and utter tool."

Oh please. Only in America is it ok to destroy company after company (and therefore thousands of working people) causing havoc in an entire industry to enrich one company and a few people to levels of wealth formerly reserved for emperors and despots if you give a tiny (and I mean tiny) fraction to good causes. Yeah that makes it ok. So it would be OK to take your job and home and profession as long as I drop 2 dollars in the poor box when I'm done. Is that what you're saying???

Why the hell do Gates defenders always bring Linus into the argument? Like Linus and Linux have anything to do with Gates and MS's shenanigans.

Re:So what?

[dwaggie]

That depends -- is it a good spot? Is it something they do once in awhile? If it were worthwhile -- such as it were a 100k/yr doctor, and parking where he did meant that he got to do something important -- like bone some nurses or something equally effective -- maybe he would continually park there.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a commie.

Re:So what?

[syrinx]

$250k net worth isn't all that much, really. yes, at 26, maybe you sure as hell don't, but by the time you're in your late 30s to 40s you probably will, what with a house and retirement accounts and so on.

however, statistically, people posting to slashdot are likely to be in their 20s, i'd bet, so your assertion is probably right anyway. :)

Re:So what?

[trentblase]

Absolutely. What's so frickin wrong with socialism anyways? I'd rather feed thousands (hell, millions) with the proceeds from the taxation of the Gates estate than ensure the availability of Veyrons for Bill's children. That's why he's made it clear that his children are only getting a few million. Damn... they'll never have to work a day in their life but it's still a lot less than a few billion. Think of the common good for once!

Re:So what?

[WindBourne]

Bill Gates is simply following in their footsteps.
Not really. The others put their money into philanthropic works without any strings attach. Such as the library systems that Carnegie funded. No strings attach.

Gates did a library thing of giving them a 300 dollar computer (more likely it cost MS ~200), and then told them they had to use MS software. This was not really philanthropic work, but a sales (we will give you the handle, you buy the razor). Later when they came under the gun for it, they quite tieing back to MS sales, but the reality is, his philantropy is all about MS.

Of course, that ignores the question of why is everybody so concerned. It is his money and he can do what he chooses to do.

BTW, the inheritence tax came about because of these philanthropists. They themselves pushed for it, just a Bill Gates Sr. pushes it now. If somebody accumulates billions (or trillions), then cool. But the tax keeps our society from creating permanent classes.

Re:So what?

[cowscows]

Ideally, we elect our officials and provide money for government so that they'll create laws that best benefit our country and its citizens. That's what they're there for. The fact that they often do a crappy job doesn't invalidate all the legislature out there.

If you want to give all of your money away to some cause so that the government gets none of it, then that's fine, more power to you. If you want to find loopholes around the tax laws to pass the money on, go ahead.

Yeah, the government wastes lots of money, I don't approve of everything that my taxes go towards, but then again the govenment has been involved in the creation of a lot of infrastructure that I use every day. And that stuff takes money. I'd prefer that as much money as is possible comes from dead people, as opposed to from my money.

Re:So what?

[GotSanity]

I find it more interesting to think that gates probably does not purchase his own stock. He probably has a broker that he uses to purchase his stock. Now, what i find funny about that is if he does utilize a stock broker who is truely at fault for this?

Re:So what?

[Zeinfeld]

Uhh, the fine isn't what is important. What is important is the fact that he (or his advisors) made this mistake in the first place.

I doubt that Gates will pay, it will probably be whatever merchant bank was advising him here that screwed up.

Interesting that Gates gets fined for the same violation that "President" Bush commited repeatedly at Harken without any problems.

The Bush violation being somewhat more eggregious because he was selling stock while knowing that the company was cooking its books Enron style and would soon be forced to restate its earnings.

Perhaps if Gates had been in Skull and Bones he would have received the same treatment.

Re:So what?

[Guppy06]

"The fine... someone gets fined $800k or a million dollars... where does that money go?"

The center of the board, where it waits until Bill lands on the "Free Parking" space again.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of abusing the system - check my sig.

Ok, I'll bite.. how do they promote porn?

Re:So what?

[jcr]

So it would be OK to take your job and home and profession as long as I drop 2 dollars in the poor box when I'm done.

What are you getting all histrionic about?

It's bad that BG and company have broken the law. It's good that BG gives money to charity. These facts are completely orthogonal to each other.

-jcr

Re:So what?

[jcr]

Just like anti-trust legislation, inheritance tax exists for the greater good of the country's citizens at large.

What utter tripe.

Inheritance tax exists because it's easier to get support in the legislature for a tax that purports to soak the rich than a general tax hike. Inflation does the rest..

-jcr

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's classic...

"Worth _only_ $40 billion at this point..."

Just shut up, will you?

Re:So what?

[dncsky1530]

wow you have 300,000 bucks. lucky

48,000,000,000 / 800,000 = 60,000
60,000 * 5 = 300,000

looks like someone sold their gmail account

Re:So what?

[torpor]

It's bad that BG and company have broken the law. It's good that BG gives money to charity.

Its bad that people think that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a philanthropic interest with no bearing whatsoever on the business machinations of its founders ...

Re:So what?

[jcr]

What does it matter what people think about it? MS didn't trot out the B&M foundation as a defense in the anti-trust case.

-jcr

Re:So what?

[Lord Kano]

My grandfather was surprised when we sat down and came up with a very rough estimate of his lifetime earnings.

He was a steelworker for 37 years. I asked him if he earned 50,000 dollars for 20 or more of those years. He of course had, boom, one million out of the way! With all of his earnings during that time and before he had earned nearly 2 million dollars over the course of his lifetime.

LK

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why the hell do Gates defenders always bring Linus into the argument? Like Linus and Linux have anything to do with Gates and MS's shenanigans."

Related? Yes, thery're related. Not hard to argument.

There's no correlation though, afaik. Would be hard to argument Linus (or Linux) has directly something to do with it =]

Re:So what?

[markbthomas]

Presumably because the money that eventually pays for healthcare and roads and other niceties like courts of justice comes out of that big government void.

Re:So what?

[pottymouth]

Oh contraire!! I think you'd better start looking at the time frame in which the B&MG foundation started it's "philanthropic" work. It was about the same time MS discovered the value of giving money to various political parties and hiring lobbying firms. Gate's is a chess player. Nothing is done at random...

Gate's is a worm but he's a very smart worm. Even the Linophyls (of which I'm one) can't deny it...

Re:So what?

[jasonisgodzilla]

What the fuck difference does it make what OS the computers are running. Why would gates put linux on these computers? Face it, most people know and like windows and don't care to learn linux. They don't care if microsoft is a monopoly. Until the *nix hordes start donating 8billion worth of computers to schools, then your criticism is a moot point. A free computer for every kid in a classroom is good thing regardless of what OS it runs. And honestly, who cares if they have to pay the 99 dollar upgrade fee for the next version of the os, assuming they even need it, when the hardware has been provided for free? Assuming that microsoft actually makes meaningful revisions to their os every 3 to 5 years, the schools would at most have to upgrade their pc's os 1 time during the life of the hardware. Oh no! They paid 100 dollars for a pc! How much would they pay for decent linux boxes? I bet more than 100 bucks.

Re:So what?

[Jackal82277]

Dude, I'm not knocking Microsoft bro, I'm a fan. I even have all the Linux crap filtered out of my /. I was trying to make the point that the guy is a genius. He makes no decision with out thinking 10 years in the future. I love the guy. Do you have any clue how much money I give this guy every year ? I bet more of my money goes to Microsoft than does my church. I agree with everything you said in your post. I was just trying to show all the ways that guy is a genius,in a way that some people don't always think about. Besides, as much as I love the guy I do realize that he knows that that 8 billion will ensure that his company lasts another 30 years, where as if he just feed every hungry person that would do nothing for his company. I like the move from a business stand point as well as a social stand point. Its a total win-win and he knows it....that's all I was trying to say.

Re:So what?

[Black Rabbit]

That's only because I left off the second half of that. ...just going through the motions.

Re:So what?

[jcr]

I'm well aware of the time frame, and I'm also well aware of what was said in the court case. MS's lawyers never said "give us a walk on this, because BG makes charitable contributions."

-jcr

Re:So what?

[pottymouth]

Welllll, as far as my limited legal knowledge goes, I would think that raising that issue in open court would be, pretty much, tantamount to asking the judge to condone quid pro quo (even though the judge would not directly benefit). If you think that every factor that affects a trials outcome is brought out in open court you're very naive...

Drug Maker?

[ziondreams]

From the article: "...$50 million in voting stock in ICOS (ICOS: Research, Estimates), a drug maker"

A drug maker? Not to bring the tin-foil hat approach to things, but seriously...what is Bill Gates interested in a drug making/researching company for? I'm a bit confused...is this related to Micro$oft? It would seem so from the mention of antitrust law, etc.

Is Micro$oft suddenly changing their business strategy to that of pharmaceuticals?!

Re:Drug Maker?

[Revolution 9]

Bill gates is known for investing in non-tech companies such as John Deere.

Re:Drug Maker?

[Allen Zadr]

From the article,

... a charge that he violated "premerger reporting requirements."

Yes, you heard that right: MS Drugs.

Re:Drug Maker?

[The Dobber]

It is called investing. Something to do with making money (and being on the board of directors, which is why he ran afoul, I believe)

And it was Bill Gates investment, not Microsoft's.

Re:Drug Maker?

[I8TheWorm]

what is Bill Gates interested in a drug making/researching company for?

For the same reason Martha Stewart was interested in ImClone. Drug companies have huge potential in share price gain as they tend to copyright everything, and sell at huge margins... provided, of course, their product gets past the FDA.

Remember, it was Bill Gates the person that bought the stock and got fined, not Micro$oft.

Re:Drug Maker?

[skifreak87]

It's his personal investment account. Maybe he's diversifying his portfolio (if one has uncorrelated assets, one can reduce risk w/out reducing expected return).

Re:Drug Maker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to bring the tin-foil hat approach to things, but seriously...what is Bill Gates interested in a drug making/researching company for?

This might be a stretch, but maybe he believes ICOS will go up?

Re:Drug Maker?

[happyfrogcow]

good point. it's called a diverse portfolio, and typically a good thing, for all those who havn't mastered the obvious yet.

Re:Drug Maker?

[bhtooefr]

Follow the link, and see what drug they're showcasing. Brings new meaning to "Although a rare occurrence, men (sysadmins) who experience an erection (server lasting) for more than 4 hours (priapism) (miracle) should seek immediate medical attention.

Re:Drug Maker?

[bhtooefr]

For at least four hours, too ;-)

If you don't get it, too bad.

Re:Drug Maker?

[Allen Zadr]

Exactly! Yes, Cialis brings back the Bill/Melinda wedding joke, "Oh, that's why you call your company Micro Soft".

Funny that's about the same time this investment took place, and (incidentally) when he joined their board of directors.

Do I smell an errie resemblance to truth???

Re:Drug Maker?

[dasmegabyte]

Patent. They tend to patent everything. Patents are for inventions and processes, copyrights are for intellectual property. Drug patents are *KIND* of a good thing, as they encourage drug companies to pump money into R&D. The patents keep other companies from being parasitic and producing drugs based off other people's research.

And drug margins are only high if they appeal to a lot of people or are significantly helpful to justify a high up front cost. If you make a drug which only works some of the time for some of the people, you may not even recoup your R&D budger. It's a crapshoot...but the potential is huge.

Re:Drug Maker?

[BK425]

Um, take off that fin foil hat :) Icos is the massively succesful biotech who invented "weekend viagra" (celdenafil). Not to burst other peoples bubbles too.. Also if he held the stock across the time that celdenafil got approval a $1M fine would probly be insignificant.

Re:Drug Maker?

[John Starks]

Thank you for correcting the parent. I was about to go frickin' nuts.

Re:Drug Maker?

[Dirtside]

Copyright isn't for "intellectual property," it's for creative works, e.g. novels, poetry, short stories, movies, comics, music, artwork, etc. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets are all forms of intellectual property.

Re:Drug Maker?

[dasmegabyte]

My bad. I corrected an inaccurate post with more innaccuracy. Thanks for being gentle with the clue stick!

Re:Drug Maker?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Drug companies make Viagra-like drugs (Cialis in this case, I think). Bill makes security-lax Windows PCs that get trojaned - which creates significant sales for this kind of product through spam distribution. It's clearly a match made in heaven.

/it's only paranoia if it's not true

MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Allen Zadr]

Oh, sure! Martha Stewart is facing possible jail time, but Bill Gates merely pays a fine! Maybe my wife is right...
it's a woman thing.

Yes, I fully know that there is no further wrongdoing than a technical disclosure oversight, but really, there must be something else they can "stick him" with.

On the other hand, MS Drugs !?!?

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[ranolen]

This is totally different. Martha's was insider trading, whereas Bill is antitrust. In the legal and financial world there is a difference.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[kfg]

Ah, but there's a difference. Martha didn't violate any SEC law, so far as anyone can tell and has never been charged with such.

What she did was lie about her guilt, and that's what she is facing jail time over.

No, wait, that's not right. She didn't lie about her guilt, because she was innocent. Ok, so, what she's facing jailtime over is lying about her innocence.

No, that can't be right either, because she was innocent.

Ok, so maybe your wife has a point.

KFG

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[mi]

Oh, sure! Martha Stewart is facing possible jail time, but Bill Gates merely pays a fine! Maybe my wife is right...

Yeah! I held up a bank and got 12 years, but he drove 20mph over the limit and all he got is a fine?? Mere slap on the wrist! How unfair!

Bill Gates' "crime" is merely failing to report a perfectly proper transaction on time. Marth Stewart used inside information (not in itself a crime in US) and then conspired to cover it up. She may have been a "woman-champion", which is why your wife may sympathize, but her crime is of much bigger scale, than this one.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[illuminata]

Maybe my wife is right...
it's a woman thing.

Or perhaps it's a total bitch thing. Martha probably would've been let off the hook, but she probably barked at them about how to properly conduct the investigation, how to cordially approach someone with charges, what not to wear at a hearing, proper speaking skills at a press conference, etc etc etc.

More than likely, Bill just volunteered the money and told them not to spend it all in one place. He probably tossed over a large .net care package and some servers to their IT department as well.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they can complete acquisitions of stock or assets valued at more than $50 million, the Justice Department said.

Gates failed to notify the FTC before buying the certain voting percentage of the company (I believe 10% or more). Martha Stewart is being investigated on charges of inside trading. There's a huge difference between the two, and inside trading can end up screwing the investments out of alot of people when it is done "right".

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[skifreak87]

Martha Stewart went to jail for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (lying about using inside information). Bill Gates is being fined for not reporting a purchase as he's required to. COMPLETELY different crimes, it's not a woman thing (not that I think she should be in jail but what he did is a lot less illegal)

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[killjoe]

Martha didn't even profit from her "crime". She simply avoided a possible loss of about 40K. Pathetic that she goes to jail for that wile Bill G pays a fine.

I don't know if it's a woman thing, I don't know if it's because she is a big donor to the democratic party or what but a huge injustice has been done to her.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[ambienceman]

Well Bill Gates' company does do something "helpful" for the US government (Carnivore, deliberate security back doors). I don't think the government employs Martha Stewart Living in the same light.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[TheFlyingGoat]

Although I'd love to see Bill face some jail time, comparing him to Martha isn't really fair. Martha isn't going to jail for illegal stock activity, she's going because she lied to federal investigators.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[crackshoe]

You are incorrect. Martha Stewart didn't get busted for insider trading. she got busted for lying about it to the feds. As far as insider trading goes, there were several people who, through the same stock broker, sold more ImCLone stock on the same advice. She was chosen as the sacrificial lamb (if i recall, her friend's (who testified against her) ex husband sold considerably more stock on the insider knowledge. check out reason.com 's archives for martha stewart - the article i recall is pre-trial, and they're blatantly pro martha, but most of their points remain salient.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have noticed that 6 posts in a row nobody read below the first sentance. As in the second, I fully admit that Bill Gates didn't do anything that bad, and yes these are different things.

Read past the first sentance before flaming me, please?

--
Allen Zadr

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to sign your posts, because Slashcode automatically puts your name at the top.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Koatdus]

On the other hand, MS Drugs !?!?

Did anyone else see the Cialia link at the top of the page? (insert micro soft joke here) hehehe

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my second sentance I already said that I knew that the Bill Gates thing is only a paperwork oversight, etc.

Please, read past my first sentance before correcting me.

--
Allen Zadr

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[hyperstation]

martha stewart hasn't gone to jail yet, nor has she even been sentenced to jail time.

mod parent up +3, misinformative

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Kenja]

"Martha Stewart went to jail for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (lying about using inside information). Bill Gates is being fined for not reporting a purchase as he's required to. COMPLETELY different crimes, it's not a woman thing (not that I think she should be in jail but what he did is a lot less illegal)"

Of course if they could prove that she lied they could have proved that she broke FTC rules. She was told that if she didn't admit to breaking the law they would charge her with lying. No real way out of that one.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with what you say, but you are wrong about the facts of Martha Stewart.

Insider trading is a crime. This is what Sam Waskal from ImClone went to jail for.

Martha Stewart was convicted for lying to federal prosecutors and obstruction of justice.

Insider trading is a crime. Trading on rumor is not a crime. Since all that her broker did was tell her that Waskal was selling his shares, it's probably tough to convict on insider trading based on that.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[DeepRedux]

Martha Stewart has in fact been charged by the SEC with committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading. This is a civil case file last June in the Southern District of New York. Peter Bacanovic, Martha'a broker at Merrill Lynch, was also charged.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Allen Zadr]

This is the "My bad" defense. I see folks pull this out at business meetings all of the time.

Boss: "So we have an oversight on this account that cost our company just shy of one million dollars."
Lazy Ass: "Oh, my bad. I forgot the change order was under my candy jar."
Boss: "Uh, ... Uh, lets try to be more careful in the future"

That's probably the greatest lesson for Martha Stewart - disarm them by saying it's your fault, and you messed up. They'll forgive you. Tell them you didn't do it, they hunt you down like a dog (in this case, a female dog).

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[jon3k]

All she had to do was: nothing.

If she would have just kept her mouth closed, she'd be watering her garden right now.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[haystor]

You confuse "innocent" with "not convicted".

If you want to argue about "in the eyes of the law" then the term you are looking to use with Martha Stewart is "felon".

Had she just come forward and admitted there was an improper trade she'd have paid a fine and everyone would have moved along.

Bill Gates position is more like filling out your taxes wrong. It is common and just owning up to it means you pay your fees/penalties and everyone gets back to business. For those people screaming that he's worth more so he should be fined more, get a life. This is a financial problem and the fine is in direct proportion to business being conducted.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[sumdumass]

This sounds alot like the "it was just a blowjob" argument around clinton and his scandles. You will probally end up beating you head into the wall before convinceing certain people of the facts.

It is funny with Microsoft, bill gates, martha stewart, bill clinton or any one else is in trouble, their popularity always seems to get in the way of the facts. Bill broke a minor law and didn't cover it up or lie about it (in this case any ways) the others seemed to do stuff even more shady by covering thier tracts and that doesn't seem to mean anything.

I guess it is like someone was speeding and got a ticket, the other person was fleeing and eluding the police tryign to give them the ticket and in turn got another penalty because they didn't stop.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[kfg]

I stand partially corrected. There is an outstanding complaint for redress of grievence against her. A suit brought forth by the SEC. Not a charge.

One of the obvious reasons for taking this approach in pursuing a civil penalty, but not a criminal, is because they don't have enough evidence for a conviction of criminal wrong doing.

KFG

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Allen Zadr]

First ... Cialis - I know, you spell it wrong because it's spelled wrong in the 400 Emails per hour that are selling this stuff, but we don't have to believe in our SPAM.

Second, Yes, and the wedding and the wedding joke (if my memory serves) was a couple of years ago, and it's not long after that, this purchase, and seat on the board of directors occurred. ...So, you have to wonder if Cialis was influenced by Bill's own needs? It certainly seems plausible that Bill bought into the company because he saw the potential cure to his "intimacy issues". :-)

Yeah, I hate Microsoft - but even if you love Microsoft, and respect Gates, you've gotta admit that it's plausible.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[sumdumass]

No the huge injustice here is the fact people don't look the crime and realize what she did was wrong. Misrepresenting the fact purposley and trying to get other to do the same is a serious problem, especially when someone is wealthy and popular.

As it turns out she wasn't even charged with breaking the laws she was trying to cover up so the simple truth would have been fine. Instead, the tactics of leading investigators down the wrong path, costing the public more money, and taking valuable resources away from going after real criminals were employed. As far as we know Bill Gates didn't do any of this so he get off easier. I don't see how some one would be pressed to not see the difference or resoning behind it.

I guess after the clinton thing, it is alrite for this type of activity to happen. Then the prosecutors are wrong for going after it. I would like to see people with children tolorate this same behavior when they did somethign wrong..lol Or have the same reaction if thier wife didn't come home for a day and tried to tell you everythign but the truth about why she did it.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[kfg]

Had she just come forward and admitted there was an improper trade she'd have paid a fine and everyone would have moved along.

Actually, it's exactly the other way around. She has been convicted for what she said.

If she had simply remained silent there would have been no crime.

Nor do I at all confuse "innocent" with "found guilty," and have posted previously on the difference between the two.

O.J. is not "Innocent". He is also "Not Guilty."

One is a statement of fact, the other a statement of legal finding.

Martha Stewart is still, in the legal sense, 100% innocent of violating law with regards to insider trading (notwithstanding the above mentioned civil action by the SEC, where the worst penalty she faces is being found "Liable," which finding has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, thus the lowered level on burden of proof in such cases).

She has been convicted of lying. For speaking up. Which she was under no compulsion to do.

Bill Gates, et all, in the meantime, falsified evidence during trial and presented it as sworn testimony, over a charge they were found guilty of, and the end result was censure of the judge for getting publicly pissed off about it after trial and the slap on the wrist given to Microsoft reduced to being flailed once with a wet noodle.

Not a very hard wet noodle either.

No one was disbarred, no one went to jail, no one was even charged with perjury.

I'm no fan of Ms. Stewart. So far as I can tell she's an arrogant prick who thinks rules only apply to other people. I am biased by not knowing her, but knowing people who know her, who think she's an arrogant prick who thinks rules only apply to other people. In the Hamptons she had created more social discord than everyone else put together. If someone is making a fuss about someone not obeying some zoning law or other, it's likely to be Martha. If someone is making a fuss because she's being asked to obey some zoning law or other, it's Martha.

I don't care for people like that.

Especially when it's the government.

KFG

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[JabberWokky]

Yes, and the judge dismissed all charges. I believe as insupportable.

--
Evan "But you can't lie to a lawman, no... he's better than you and I"

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Vicegrip]

Because everyone always tells the truth to the police:
"Yes sir, officer, I was thought I was doing 55mph ... you musta clocked that other car.."

It doesn't excuse her, of course, but the hypocrisy of everyone flaming her for lying is getting to me.

Trying to cover up a stupidity is something not many people can honestly claim to never have done.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[multimed]

What has always floored me most about the whole Martha Stewart thing was what a relatively insignificant amout of money she ultimately has thrown so much of her life away for. I don't know whether she's going to end up in jail or not or what the total cost of will be--safe to say it's millions and millions of dollars, major embarassment and the emotional stress (not feeling sorry for her just stating a fact) plus maybe jail all to have saved $50,000 that amounts to pocket change to her at the time. And they could have sat ready to dump it the next morning once the announcement came out and probably cut that loss in half.

Of course I guess this is all probably the wrong way to look at it--it's not about risking so much for so little for these people--it's the whole mindset that the rules are for other people, it's not really wrong unless you get caught, and "hey it's me, what are they gonna do about it?"

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[crackshoe]

Ironically, if she had held onto the stock, she would haev earned a profit in the past few months.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[mi]

Insider trading is a crime.

Yes. I was not clear. I meant to say, Martha was not an insider. Merely acting on insider's information by a non-insider is not in itself a crime in US (it is in some other countries).

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Bourbonium]

Well, that's not exactly what the original poster was claming. He said Gates invested in the drug company for the same reason Martha invested in Imclone. The interesting thing about the Imclone deal is that if Martha had simply followed standard investor practice and ridden through the rough period, she would have not only never been charged with any crime, she would be even richer than she was before. The cancer drug that Imclone was testing has now been approved by the FDA and will be on the market in a matter of weeks. It is common practice to halt clinical trials at the halfway point and anlayze the data to see if the drug can be proven to already be overwhelmingly effective in treating the disease for which it was developed. If it does, the clinical trial is ended early and the drug immediately goes into the licensure procedure. If it doesn't, the clinical trial continues to its conclusion. The Imclone drug did not meet this criteria at the halfway point, and the stock fell when the FDA ordered the clinical trial continued. Two days before the announcement, Waksall and his family dumped their shares and Martha sold hers the next day.

Once the clinical trial concluded, however, the drug proved to actually work quite well at reducing specific tumors, and the FDA approved it for licensure. Imclone's stock has now risen much higher than it was when Martha dumped her shares. Had she just had faith in the company and its product and held onto her stocks, she could have avoided all this trouble, and made much more money in the bargain.

If you believe in the company, you buy and hold the investment to realize a profit in the long run. Martha used to work on Wall Street, and should have practiced whaat most investment advisors have been preaching for decades. Greed, and perhaps panic, clouded her judgment.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Martha Stewart guilty verdict is more than troubling. It is an outrage.

The very case itself typifies today's government -- an entity that is free to intrude in any area of your life, free to make up the rules as it goes along, free to allow prosecutors to make names for themselves in high-profile cases without facing any personal consequences, no matter what harm they do.

Let me make it clear that I don't know Martha Stewart, I've never seen her TV show, and I've never read any of her books or magazines. I don't know what kind of person she is, and I don't care. But I care deeply about the kind of country America has turned into -- one in which there is no firm rule of law and anyone can be prosecuted at any time for any kind of offense that the government wants to invent.

No Crime Was Committed

Before you try to tell me Martha Stewart was proven guilty, I must first ask, "Guilty of what?"

Whom has she harmed? What is she supposed to have done that warrants sending her to prison?

The entire case arose because the prosecutor claims that she sold her ImClone stock on an "inside" tip when her broker told her that the head of ImClone was selling his stock.

So what????

What if she did act on inside information?

Is that any more unfair than some investor having a bigger computer than you have? Or having enough money to subscribe to more investment tip sheets than you do? Or being smarter than you are?

Since when it is a crime in America to use your wits, your knowledge, your talents, and -- yes -- your contacts to make money?

Although everyone in the courtroom for the Stewart trial -- and everyone talking about it on television -- assumes that there is something evil about so-called insider trading, the truth is that it is a victimless crime.

There is no victim -- no one who was hurt by the actions of someone buying or selling on inside information. Maybe it seems obvious to you that an insider can't profit without someone else being hurt, but that simply isn't the case. When Martha Stewart was indicted last year, I explained why "insider trading" is a crime without a victim.

And since there's no victim, "insider trading" is really a crime against the state -- and only the state -- like using recreational drugs or doing business with someone in a way that pleases all participants but displeases some politician or bureaucratic idiot who has no idea what he's doing.

And speaking of not knowing what he's doing, juror Chappell Hartridge remarked proudly on television that the Stewart guilty verdict sends a message that the investment markets will be safer for the little investor. He said, "Maybe it's a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions."

He hasn't the faintest idea how the investment markets work (and neither, apparently, did anyone else in the courtroom), but he holds the life of Martha Stewart in his hands.

Is Lying a Crime?

The prosecution also charged Martha Stewart with lying to government investigators.

Again, so what????

Just imagine for a moment how you would feel if you discovered that the United States Government had suddenly decided to use millions of dollars of its resources to prosecute you for something.

Most likely, you'd be scared to death. Imagine: you're likely to be put in prison for several years, lose your life savings, be separated from your family, lose your career. Your whole life would crumble.

In this situation, barely able to keep your emotions in check, if you saw a chance to beat the rap by telling a lie or doctoring some evidence, you'd have a huge incentive to do so -- even if you were innocent.

Doing anything you can to get the investigators off your back is a perfectly natural act. But now it's a crime. And the prosecutor in the Martha Stewart case smugly tells the world that the guilty verdict "sends a message" that lying to government employees will get you

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[mi]

No Crime Was Committed...

Is Lying a Crime?

It is -- when done while under oath. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[killjoe]

SO let me get this straight. If a prosecutor comes up to you and says you comitted a crime and you say that you didn't you should go to jail?

There is a constitutional amendment against self incrimination. You should look into it.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[Noren]

There is no victim -- no one who was hurt by the actions of someone buying or selling on inside information. Maybe it seems obvious to you that an insider can't profit without someone else being hurt, but that simply isn't the case. When Martha Stewart was indicted last year, I explained why "insider trading" is a crime without a victim.

I'm not going to address the specifics of the Martha Stewart case, but I have an issue with this paragraph.

The act of buying and selling stock does not by itself create wealth. If trader A gains $N, some set of other traders must therefore lose a corresponding $N to make everything even out. The fact that the way the market works makes it hard to point at a specific set of people who lost that particular money does not mean that those individuals do not exist- they must, as that capital did not miraculously come into existance from the ether.

The existance of (and to a greater extent the perception of the existance of) insider traders strongly discourages non-insider potential investors from becoming investors. If a potential investor suspects that the person wishing to sell stock is acting on insider information (and thus knows that the price of that stock will go down after it is sold) the potential investor is discouraged from investing. The more insider trading prodominates the stock market the more it would resemble a poker game where if you don't know who the sucker at the table is, it's you.

A major purpose of the SEC is to encourage investment, and an important tool in this is maintaining at least the appearance that trading is 'fair' and that non-insider traders aren't merely suckers for the insider traders to unload bad stock on.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[sumdumass]

No you shouldn't goto jail if you didn't do the crime you being acused of.

But if the prosecuter after asking if you did the crime, asks "where were you on the night of may 3rd 2004 at 06:04pm (heh,.it's what the post says..)and were you anywere near a computer" then you answer "I was at my underwater basket weaving class" then add " The closest computer that I was aware of at that time was 200 miles away so there was no way I was anywere near a computer" when in fact you posted the responce I am replying to, then yes you should goto jail.

This is what happened in with martha, bill and several other that had different outcomes. saying no I didn't do the crime is a defence. saying you were somewere totaly different then were you were or that you were doing somethign else and therefore didn't do whatever there is proof (or suspicion)of you doing is obsturcting justice/an investigation or whatever. When in doubt the best reply is the reagan reply "I don't remeber" or I need to confer with my atourney before answering a question like that.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[killjoe]

A police interrogation is not under oath. You are under no obligation to tell the truth to the police. You are free to lie to them as much as you want to. The best thing is to say nothing but lying to cops is not a crime.

Sorry.

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[sumdumass]

A police interrogation is not under oath. You are under no obligation to tell the truth to the police. You are free to lie to them as much as you want to. The best thing is to say nothing but lying to cops is not a crime.

Well your partly right. As far as I know on a federal level you need to be involved in certian types of investigations/crimes before any statment you make to anyone empowered by the government at any time can be consider a violation if it is false.

On the other hand most states have laws that deal with lieing to police when they are cunducting an official investigation. In Ohio (were i'm close to) among other things 2921.32. Obstructing justice. of the criminal code makes it ileagle to

(4) Destroy or conceal physical evidence of the crime or act, or induce any person to withhold testimony or information or to elude legal process summoning the person to testify or supply evidence;
(5) Communicate false information to any person;
(6) Prevent or obstruct any person, by means of force, intimidation, or deception, from performing any act to aid in the discovery, apprehension, or prosecution of the other person or child.

It is also interesting that it provides for situation were the person being protected was actually inocent.

(B) A person may be prosecuted for, and may be convicted of or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing, a violation of division (A) of this section regardless of whether the person or child aided ultimately is apprehended for, is charged with, is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing the crime or act the person or child aided committed. The crime or act the person or child aided committed shall be used under division (C) of this section in determining the penalty for the violation of division (A) of this section, regardless of whether the person or child aided ultimately is apprehended for, is charged with, is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing the crime or act the person or child aided committed.
(C) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing justice.

So yes you can lie to a policman in certain situations but not when he is acting in an official investigation. Also seeing how this became a discussion over martha as well as bill the federal laws relating to it is somewhat interesting too.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1505.html holds some penalties that could be related to what martha stewart was doing. Something else that is interesting is because the original investigation was into the finacial instatution (her stock broker) then this may also apply or be the basis of thier complaint.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1517.html
this is worthy of a direct quote,

Sec. 1517. - Obstructing examination of financial institution

Whoever corruptly obstructs or attempts to obstruct any examination of a financial institution by an agency of the United States with jurisdiction to conduct an examination of such financial institution shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both

If the original investigation wasn't into her broker giving out insider trading information that was a misdemeanor, I don't think she could have been prosecuted.

This didn't start out as a witch hunt about martha doing somethign wrong. It was about her acounts of her broker doing something wrong and she could have been implemented in it. What she done after that went from a possible misdemeanor to a felony.

--spell checkign is for the smarter race. all quotes are from eother other posts or laws that were display when referencing them. i only made up this sig and my part of the comment

Re:MS, Martha and Drugs...

[abb3w]

Because everyone always tells the truth to the police:
"Yes sir, officer, I was thought I was doing 55mph ... you musta clocked that other car.."

Depends on the cop. There's a couple of national parks where the rangers give out speeding tickets. Lying to them is a federal felony. I don't care how much the speeding ticket is going to be for, I don't care if it's going to cost me my license: It will cost me more and be longer before I can legally drive if I go to prison for five years over lying to a fed. Smile, admit you were stupid, take the ticket, and chalk up the experience. If you hire a good lawyer and get a freindly judge, you may even avoid the reckless driving conviction.

Kind of Harsh

[andyrut]

Gee, isn't $800,000 kind of steep? That's almost a staggering one thirty-seven-thousandth (0.00265%) of his current net worth!

http://www.quuxuum.org/~evan/bgnw.html

Re:Kind of Harsh

[iamwoodyjones]

I was thinking more along the lines of tommorrow seeing on slashdot,

"Peanut cuts Bill Gates in bathroom."

Along with a link to a lengthy article that I no doubt would like to print out and take to the bathroom with me.

Re:Kind of Harsh

[andy55]

Gee, isn't $800,000 kind of steep?

800K should be enough for anyone.

Big fine

[Quila]

$800K just for forgetting to do your paperwork? They definitely take this stuff seriously.

Re:Big fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you are on the board of directors, it's not like you can deny that you know what's going on. And...it's Bill Gates. Who doesn't want to stick it to him?

Re:Big fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, except that he's *not* on the board of directors. He *knows* the board of directors, which is so different, it's not even funny.

Re:Big fine

[Allen Zadr]

RTFA:

The government said Gates did not qualify for an exemption to federal notification requirements because he intended to participate in the business decisions of ICOS through his long-standing membership on that company's board of directors." (Bold emphasis added).

Are you saying that the article is wrong? Or are you trolling like the AC you are?

He'll hardly miss it

[Anonymous Coward]

Barely enough to buy 1 rocket car.

Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[DaHat]

$50 mil stock buy and a 800k fine... lets do the math

800,000 / 50,000,000 = 1.6%

A 1.6% fine? That seems low when so many dollars are involved.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[Janek Kozicki]

yeah.
here in Poland, people who earn yearly more than 74000 PLN = 18500 USD (roughly) must pay 40% tax. Which makes them earning 11100 USD instead of 18500. Or 30`000`000 instead of 50`000`000 USD ;/

fellow readers from Poland please correct me, I checked here

so. if Gates was about to make his money in Poland we should be able to launch rocket to Mars :) But I guess our crippled government will just lose all that money :>

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[WindBourne]

Yeah, but MS and BG have been learning to simply pay no taxes, but pay relatively minor fines for stepping outside of the law. It is now consider no different than a bribe in other countries. To be honest, you can not blame either. They are simply learning to play on the edge. Until we start holding executives and directors responsible for there actions , this will get much worse. We need to start giving real fines and jail time to those who are really responsible.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[aquabat]

They probably based the number on the amount of extra money he may have made on the investment as a result of not filing the required paperwork publicly, at the required time. I'm guessing the rule is there so people in the know don't have an unfair advantage over the general public.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[pw1972]

It sounds like he only purchased the stock and so far hasn't sold it. Whic makes it more then likely it was just an accountant slip up. He'll probably just send the bill to his broker or accountant or whoever just handles his $$$

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[wuice]

You stole my thunder... Sounds like he still came out damn good on this one.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[hobbes75]

>We need to start giving real fines and jail time to those who are really responsible

The same should apply for politicians.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[WindBourne]

The same should apply for politicians.

I agree.
In my state, a senator is quitting. He was running until an investigation was started that showed kickbacks were being taken by the staff (and possibly the senator). Once he announced that he was not running, the investigation stopped. Sad. I liked the senator (and voted for the person all of the time), but I do think that the investigation should continue.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[LilGuy]

You can't lose what you never had... and your government's set up probably explains why you don't have any multi-millionaires in your country... much less billionaires.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it wasn't a percentage fine. The judge just said "give us what you have on you."

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[skink1100]

> We need to start giving real fines and jail time to those who are really responsible.

Martha Stewart. Not as rich as Bill, of course, but probably about as well-known in the US.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[schemanista]

Martha Stewart. Not as rich as Bill, of course, but probably about as well-known in the US.

How do you expain Ken Lay?

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[SphericalCrusher]

The thing is... and I still wonder... does he have to give the stock back? If not, he can make that fine back in no time at all.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[eXtro]

Easy. In a right-wing Christian government (as opposed to a conservative government) women shouldn't be in positions of power. So if a Martha Stewart does anything wrong she'll be penalized to the fullest extend of the law or at least until negative publicity outweighs positive publicity. Ken Lay is male so there's no great incentive to penalize him.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[sumdumass]

And all I can do is laugh.

Do you ever stop and listen to what your saying?

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[schemanista]

In a right-wing Christian government...

Actually, I think it's because of who Stewart doesn't golf with.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I guess our crippled government will just lose all that money :>

Yeah, but in the US, we give the tax dollars to the wealthy. Better to not collect than to offer welfare for the rich.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[cobbaut]

shouldn't that be 800.000/50.000.000.000 = 0,0016% ?

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[cobbaut]

no it shouldn't ...i was thinking about his bank account...

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ on a cracker. You really believe that?

Mod parent (-1, Stupid).

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[nfsilkey]

You only wish Bill was worth 50 _million_.

Read some of the earlier posts as they said it correctly: 0.002%.

"Percentage: Confusing Slashdot readers since 1994"
-Poster ~12 clicks above me at +3 ;)

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[jedrek]

Actually, it's $14100. The scale is progressive - you pay 19% of your first 37000PLN, 30% of the next 37000PLN and 40% on everything above 74000PLN.

That said, rarely do people who have even 1/100th of what Gates does, pay taxes as most of us little folk pay them. Incorporating yourself, working on a contract instead of work contract, payment in loans, in equity, in shares. Offshore bank accounts, etc, etc. There are a lot of ways to hide earnings or to book them as something else.

Even though the income tax scale in Poland runs from 19% to 40%, the 'effective tax procent' - the statistical average for income tax - is 14%.

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[jedrek]

Poland's Wealthiest People (top 5)

(taken from Wprost)

1. Jan KULCZYK
3.125 billion USD

2. Aleksander GUDZOWATY
800 million USD

3. Zygmunt SOLORZ-ZAK
675 million USD

4. Ryszard KRAUZE
650 million USD

5. Marek MIKUSKIEWICZ
350 million USD

Re:Talk about a slap on the wrist!

[DaHat]

read my original comment and you will see that my 50 million number had nothing to do with his personal wealth but instead referred to the value of the stock purchase alone.

Too Low

[name_already_in_use]

Again the fine is so low in comparison to gain to make it almost negligable and totally ineffective.

Re:Too Low

[joeware]

Again the fine is so low in comparison to gain to make it almost negligable and totally ineffective.

What gain is it that you are talking about? Did you read the article?!? He simply didn't file some paperwork. If he had filed the paperwork, he would have still been able to purchase the stock. An $800,000 fine out of $50,000,000 is quite substantial for not filing paperwork.

Re:Too Low

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. -Office Space.

Re:Too Low

[beckerie]

It may just be pocket change for the richest man in the world, but Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 by the federal government for violating an antitrust rule.

The ineffectiveness of the law in addressing issues of inequality is all the more evident in case law such as this. There is a lack of political will to redress inequalities even when highlighted through such powerful means as the media. The petty amount that the rich are fined could well possibly be more than some people earn in a lifetime.

The aim to ensure that everybody is equal before the law, regardless of education or socio-economic background, should result in affirmative action which reflects community standards. But of course on the flip side, the law exists to serve the short-term political and economic interests of the government.

Obviously, being worth $40 billion, the amount Billy Gates was fined is just a slap across the wrist. How's that for justice, fairness and equity?

Re:Too Low

[bonch]

So you want to discriminate against wealthier people by making their fines higher than someone less wealthy who committed the same act?

He just failed to report a transaction on time. But Slashdot will, of course, breathlessly report it as "BILL GATES FINED $800,000 OVER STOCK PURCHASES!!" like a National Enquirer.

Re:Too Low

[vk2]

You explain this.. if I owe tax to uncle sam and I don't file in the return by Apr 15th ( without filling for extension ) I get slapped by about 25% fine - how is this paperwork different ? 25% v/s 1.6% - I say its not fair.

Re:Too Low

[haystor]

Let's say he does his taxes and is off by a dollar. Should he have to send in a dollar plus a few more for penalties/interest, or should he have to send in $2billion because he's that rich?

Re:Too Low

[beckerie]

Should allowances be made for certain individuals just because they have the economic power to sway the law? Of course not, just like you or I if we make a mistake then we should be responsible for it.
It's not about the money, but about enforcing the law, and generally, if the penalty doesn't hurt then it won't hurt to do it again.

Re:Too Low

[mithras the prophet]

You mean you want to discriminate in favor of wealthier people by fining a fixed dollar amount? Should they be permitted more infractions because they have more money?

If you ask me, speeding tickets and the like should be scaled to income as well.

Re:Too Low

[TykeClone]

You just chose the wrong department to file paperwork incorrectly with.

Re:Too Low

[gallen1234]

So you want to discriminate against wealthier people by making their fines higher than someone less wealthy who committed the same act?

Why not? We do it all the time. That's how income tax works, right?

Re:Too Low

[haystor]

What allowances? There are rules, he missed some filings and paid the appropriate fine, yet on slashdot are screaming for chunks of his wealth (not even calling for parts of his income which would be vaguely appropriate).

He paid a fine that was a decent proportion to the amount invested. Are you saying that a billionaire should be liable for billions upon investing just a few million? That'd be a wonderful way to drive all the successful people out of the market.

How much money he has is completely irrelevant. He's interested enough in investing $50 million. Compared to that amount, $800,000 is significant. What indication is there he would want to do this again? He's got two choices: $50 million in stock, or $50 million in stock minus $800k cash. It doesn't matter how rich he is, he's going to choose not to do that again.

All right, let's assume this is a punitive fine instead of a procedural one. Should he have to pay a percentage of income or of wealth? What percentage should it be?

Re:Too Low

[nfotxn]

How is a proportion discriminatory?

Re:Too Low

[beckerie]

Like I said in my preceding post, it's not about the money but rather that he violated the law and because of his overwhelming wealth it probably won't affect him as much as if somebody in a signficantly more disadvantageous economic situation were fined the same amount.
He's broken other antitrust and competition laws which legislate against unfairness and trade practices which undermine competition within the industry.
So who says that he won't do it again? Being in as much trouble as he is already, one would think that he would try and be more careful.

Re:Too Low

[tfoss]

So you want to discriminate against wealthier people by making their fines higher than someone less wealthy who committed the same act?

Well, if the point of a fine is to prevent behavior, then you would be stupid not to.

-Ted

Re:Too Low

[haystor]

Which investor of $50 million would you consider to be disadvantaged?

In this case, we're only talking about people that can buy at least 10% of a company. They all possess virtually the same advantages.

The small investor doesn't even have to fill out this paperwork.

Now, if he had dumped the stock on smaller investors without observing the reporting requirements and waiting periods that would be a different story entirely. Also, if he had done any of the trading with insider knowledge that would be a different situation as well. This is not what happened. This is a purchase that was perfectly legal except some missing reporting he was going to own more than 10%.

Re:Too Low

[greg_barton]

He just failed to report a transaction on time. But Slashdot will, of course, breathlessly report it as "BILL GATES FINED $800,000 OVER STOCK PURCHASES!!" like a National Enquirer.

No, a National Enquirer headline would be "BILL GATES EATS BABIES WHILE ALIENS WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!"

Re:Too Low

[bwy]

Why, sure. By the same token, people with more time on their hands should be put in jail for LONGER.

Now see, I got a lot of valuable shit to be doing. Putting me in jail for one day would be pretty bad. But say, some unemployed oaf living off his parents, well, stick that bastard in jail for the same crime for 10 years.

Oh yeah, people also shouldn't be convicted if they rob someone who has "lots of money." Shit, if you steal Bill Gate's TV, it doesn't matter to him. Why should the thief be put in jail? Now steal day old bread from a homeless man- thats another story. Its all about the proletariat here at slashdot, comrade!

I really need to quit reading the news here. The sarcasm it is causing is just too much.

Re:Too Low

[Anonymous Coward]

FINE == PUNISHMENT

Therefore, the wealthier should be fined more.

Re:Too Low

[Bearpaw]

Well, if the point of a fine is to prevent behavior, then you would be stupid not to.

Clearly some people feel the point of a fine is to discourage certain behaviors ... but only in people who aren't rich. As Anatole France famously put it (translated):

"For the poor, citizenship consists of supporting and sustaining the power and idleness of the rich. They must work for those goals before the majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."

(Of course, in current Neo-con Correctness fashion, I should now be accused of "inciting class warfare" for daring to point out that the class war continues. Or perhaps I'll just be accused of sounding French.)

Re:Too Low

[bonch]

But it's unfair to assign different levels of punishment to different people like that. If someone has more money and is more successful, that doesn't make the crime somehow worse than some less wealthy guy who does the same thing. You're essentially saying the law has two sides, depending on how wealthy you are.

Although the richer guys have more to lose in the way of reputation...I think that more than makes up for it.

Re:Too Low

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I have an idea. Let's make the power of one's vote proportionate to the amount of income tax they pay. Surely, you would think that's fair right?

Re:Too Low

[jjoyce]

You're essentially saying the law has two sides, depending on how wealthy you are.

That's because it does.

Re:Too Low

[nfotxn]

Yeah, and fines are exactly the same as elections. Check your head.

Who cares?

[joeware]

This is not tech news. This is personal news about Bill Gates with nothing to do with Microsoft. Other than to laugh at and make fun of Bill Gates, who cares about this stupid story. Post better stories or don't post anything at all. Right?!?

Re:Who cares?

[errxn]

Please *mod parent up*! I was going to say the same thing. Then again, maybe the editors of /. enjoy having this website being perceived as a bunch of petty anti-MS zealots with an axe to grind, credibility be damned.

Memo to editors: You do no favors for the popularity of [insert favorite OS here] by posting sophomoric, vindictive, and largely irrelevant stories about Bill Gates. On the contrary, it makes you (and what you advocate, by association) look immature.

Just stop it.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean people don't like MS Windows? What is that like 10% of the world? LOL!

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please explain how the parent post is offtopic.

Re:Who cares?

[killjoe]

This si slashdot you moron. If you want something else go somewhere else. The internet is big enough to accomodate slashdot AND corporate sycophants like you.

Re:Who cares?

[antiMStroll]

You really have no concept of irony, do you? Compare your post to the original story for a textbook example.

Re:Who cares?

[errxn]

I'm a "corporate sycophant"? For that post? Congratulations, that may be the most beautiful ad hominem attack post in /. history.

Re:Who cares?

[errxn]

You really have no concept of irony, do you?

Apparently not, because I fail to see any ironic relationship between this (non) story and my post. I'm confident, antiMStroll, that you'll be happy to explain it to me in the most pejorative of terms, however.

Fire away.

Re:Who cares?

[cmacb]

Not all news on /. is tech news.

But even if it was, news about the richest man in the world, who happens to head the biggest software company in the world is still tech news. There were articles here about Martha Stewart for God's sake, does that mean that /. has something against... cooking techniques, or holiday decorations made from old socks?

Same news about Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, or that incredibly wicked and vile Darl McBride would also be news here, or CNet or the Wall Street Journal.

No need to be so protective of Microsoft, they can take care of themselves.

Re:Who cares?

[killjoe]

" I'm a "corporate sycophant"? For that post?"

Why yes. Who else would be upset if somebody made fun of Microsoft corporation. Do you get upset if people make fun of maytag corporation or gilette corporation?

Why would anybody care what anybody says about any corporation? I don't care, but you do. You care enough to post about it and whine about how unfair slashdot is to poor little Microsoft and helpless little Bill Gates.

Your willingless to bravely defend a corporation against the slashdot masses indeed makes you a corporate sycophant. You may not like what you have become but you can't hide from it.

Re:Who cares?

[errxn]

Nice troll.

Re:Who cares?

[antiMStroll]

I could reply wiht a post laden with terms such as

petty.... zealots.... axe to grind.... credibility be damned.... sophomoric.... vindictive.... irrelevant... immature.

but I fear you'd miss the irony again. Or was that too "pejorative"? Look again and see who the strident, vindictive posters really were today.

Re:Who cares?

[errxn]

Why are you arguing with me anyway? You should be agreeing with me, if you are really "anti-MS" as your username says and want to see Linux, et.al. succeed. Or is just being a troll more important to you?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Memo to editors: You do no favors for the popularity of [insert favorite OS here] by posting sophomoric, vindictive, and largely irrelevant stories about Bill Gates. On the contrary, it makes you (and what you advocate, by association) look immature.

This news did get covered on the front page of most major news websites (non-techy ones included). Maybe you're blowing it way the fuck out of proportion, just because it doesn't address the real problems you might see in Microsoft. Geez, not every MS article has to be like that.

Re:Who cares?

[killjoe]

Thank you. And yet you do not dispute anything I say.

Hey I hear there is a forum someplace on the internet where they are making fun of MS, you better rush over there and defend them. Go run my little friend. You are wasting precious time reading my post when Bill gates is under constant attack. He needs your help!

Re:Who cares?

[errxn]

No, I didn't dispute anything you said. Now I will. You are full of shit. I don't care about Microsoft, I'm not here to defend them. I just don't want a headline on /. every time Bill Gates farts in public. I don't care about it.

Get back in the fucking basement, troll.

Re:Who cares?

[killjoe]

This is slashdot. The headlines are about MS, linux and every single point release and pre-release of Mozilla.

If you don't like it leave.

We will get you anyway we can

[manganese4]

nothing to do with the government's massive antitrust battles

But while we were looking through all your belongings we noticed this little tidbit and jumped on it!

Republic Services

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow it is appropriate that BG invests into a company that is owned by H. Wayne Huizenga. I wonder if BG is made yet?

You never know

[SpyPlane]

Once they start throwing white women in jail (Martha), nobody is safe, even rich white men!

Once they ruled against Martha, I knew that Michael Jackson and Kobe were screwed.

Re:You never know

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you say that? Bill is blacker than MJ. Hell, even Martha is blacker than MJ

Re:You never know

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they start throwing white women in jail (Martha), nobody is safe, even rich white men!

Not really. Ken Law and Anshutz are still running around and looks like they will totally be in the clear. It is simply a matter of giving large sums of money to the right presidents, DOJ and FCC heads.

Re:You never know

[SpyPlane]

Indeed. I stand corrected. And somehow offtopic even considering "rich white man" was in my post about Bill gates. Go figure.

Re:You never know

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that makes...
NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!

I welcome you, brother, but you need to provide more with which to work before you have earned your place here.

Please, try again. Try often. And remember to enjoy a good solid p00p every now and again.
p00p is your friend! p00p is good for you!! you WANT p00p, NEEEED p00p, even, dare I say it, CRAVE p00p!

Re:You never know

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they ruled against Martha, I knew that Michael Jackson and Kobe were screwed.

Except that Kobe isn't a white woman!

What I'm wondering is...

[fiannaFailMan]

What is he doing on the board of a drug company? I didn't think it was his sort of thing.

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[error502]

The company makes drugs for erectile dysfunction. I think it's exactly his sort of thing.

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[Mateito]

You trying to tell me that the person responsable for Windows wasn't deep in a drug induced haze?

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[SpyPlane]

The whole board of directors thing is a interesting one, many companies like a diversified group on their board from all sorts of industry. The fact that they have Bill Gates on their board isn't for his knowledge of drug companies, but for his knowledge of business (whether messed up or not). The board of director guys get paid a load of money for really not doing much work. It's one of the perks of being an ex-CEO these days.

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[Stevyn]

Not his sort of thing?

Making money is is sort of thing. I hope you didn't think software was his sort of thing. Maybe 30 years ago, but I think he's moved on.

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[sweede]

thats kind of funny if you consider that Gates and Co got the "idea" of Windows from lookin at the Apple computer that Steve jobs designed durin an acid trip (or some other drug induced haze) :)

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[fitten]

The drug induced haze of visiting Xerox PARC and seeing their GUI works?

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[sweede]

Something like that ya

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Prrof, yet again, that the /. community will jabber on incessantly about things they know absolutely FUCK ALL about.

BillG has been making HUGE investments in biotech for well over a decade.

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[RoadkillBunny]

I didn't think it was his sort of thing
You sure? We were never able to figure out what he's holding in this picture...

Re:What I'm wondering is...

[JD-1027]

That is odd. Revisit the parent's link until you see the Audio Key Ring ad right next to him holding it.

Him, not Microsoft

[Bilange]

Gates was fined, not the company itself. It looks like Gates is closely watched, isnt it ?

Re:Him, not Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, he was not nailed on the first infraction, just a warning. Normally a penality is issued right away. Bill was hit with no penality for the first one and then had a slap on the wrist for the 2'nd.

Dang

[0xC0FFEE]

Where was Mitnick when we really needed him?

How could this money have been better spent?

[BReflection]

There are so many ways this money could have been better spent. How about opening a nice call center for all of your customers, Mr. Gates? (note: i realize this was his personal fortune, but the point stands. MS support is a pain) How many starving children could you have fed. Doesn't pissing your cash into the wind kind of contradict having the largest charity fund on earth? This dude is seriously bipolar.

Re:How could this money have been better spent?

[Anonymous Coward]

your mom is a huge troll.

Re:How could this money have been better spent?

[jwcorder]

Dude, no offense, but how is he pissing his money away. He bought 50 million in stock. Plus, he puts more money into starving kids then I will put into my actual kids faces in their lifetime. Give the guy a break.

Re:How could this money have been better spent?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm a huge troll and i live uunder a bridge.

Re:How could this money have been better spent?

[mt v2.7]

Gates gives an insane amount of money away every year. I believe last year he gave over 1,000,000,000 to an HIV/AIDS center in Africa.

Got change?

[t1nman33]

"Gates was stymied in his efforts to pay the fine when nobody in the courtroom could give him change for $1 million." /obvious

Re:Got change?

[joeware]

Funny - slightly. But such a troll. Why would he need change when there is no $1 million dollar bill? He would write a check, wire money, or charge the exact amount to his credit card, or pay cash with $1000 bills. None of these scenarios require change.

Re:Got change?

[kin_korn_karn]

Shut up, Milhouse!

Re:Got change?

[jsantos]

... The $1 million in question was in the form of one of the new $1 million bills with Gate's ugly mug on it.

Re:Got change?

[John Starks]

There is no such thing as $1000 bills today. They've been out of circulation since 1946.

But then again, it's kind of sad that I'm replying to a troll that's responding to a troll. Ah well.

800K?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got more than that under my couch cushions.

Re:800k?

[filtur]

My guess is that he'll pull the $800K from under his couch cushions.

Math Quiz

[douthat]

$800,000 / $30,170,000,000 = .00002651640703 how's that for BG's $0.02 :-P

Wow...

[FortKnox]

You think he's got it hard enough with every foaming-at-mouth linux zealot tracing his every step (and writing article about it *cough*), and giving knee-jerk reactions... now the government is paying extra close attention to him. You think he'd pay a stock-broker enough to handle informing the government of his purchases...

Re:Wow...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

You think he's got it hard enough with every foaming-at-mouth linux zealot tracing his every step (and writing article about it *cough*), and giving knee-jerk reactions... now the government is paying extra close attention to him. You think he'd pay a stock-broker enough to handle informing the government of his purchases...

You know, the megarich tend to be tightwads about the sort of thing.

Re:Wow...

[haystor]

Accountants, Doctors and Lawyers are three places the mega-rich tend *not* to be tightwads. They do tend to be very cost sensitive in other areas like new cars, clothing and jewelry.

Re:Wow...

[Rick.C]

You think he'd pay a stock-broker enough to handle informing the government of his purchases...

He did, but the broker's Windows box got owned and the report went to ftp.sec.com.

Re:Wow...

[OwlWhacker]

You think he's got it hard enough with every foaming-at-mouth linux zealot tracing his every step

I find that remark offensive and unfounded.

I don't trace his every step, and I'm a foaming-at-mouth Linux zealot.

The perils of Goldfish...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

What, you mean being a convicted monopolist means that I have to register everything I do?

Kind of makes it sound like he's a sex offender.

(Proceeding to NOT go there.)

Re:The perils of Goldfish...

[pavon]

What, you mean being a convicted monopolist means that I have to register everything I do?

No, not at all. However the business rules in this country state that the list of anyone holding more than 10% stock of a publically traded company must be made public. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the person who perchases the stock to report this information. Mr. Gates is not being held to a higher standard than anyone else.

What's another 800K?

[erick99]

The fact that he has done this before (probably not him so much as whomever gets delegated these tasks) shows that he either doesn't care or he considers the fines a reasonable cost of doing business. When you get your ownership up to 10% of a company you have to report it - that's not exactly an obscure requirement. But, Bill and Company got slapped for that as well a few years back according to the article:

The Federal Trade Commission said it had warned Gates about a similar reporting infraction when his personal investment trust bought shares of Republic Services Corp. (RSG: Research, Estimates) in November 2001. The acquisition brought his stake to more than 10 percent of the outstanding shares of the waste-hauling company.

Antitrust rules require that entities must file with the government when their holdings exceed 10 percent of a company's stock.

. Anyway, when you are worth $40 billion you can afford these "luxuries."

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:What's another 800K?

[glitch23]

The Federal Trade Commission said it had warned Gates about a similar reporting infraction when his personal investment trust bought shares of Republic Services Corp. in November 2001. The acquisition brought his stake to more than 10 percent of the outstanding shares of the waste-hauling company.

He must have been preparing for the rejection of Windows XP by the populous.

Sucks for him

[Stevyn]

How what's he going to wipe his ass with tomorrow morning? Maybe extra windows 95 licences left over or the stolen SCO code.

Percentage, not flat fine

[crackshoe]

I like what some counrties do -- for fines, they use a percentage of that persons earnings or total wealth (i forget which) and calculate the fine based on that. You don't gouge the poor, and the rich pay a reasonable amount.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same as the argument of punitive vs. actual damages.
Punitive damages take into account earnings/wealth, whereas actual damages do not.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about Finland, where recently a well-known capitalist received a traffic ticket of U$200,000 just for driving over the speed limit.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[crackshoe]

thanks. that was exactly what i was recalling.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Phekko]

That would be us Finns. Most fines are based on your yearly income. This still gets circulated and I don't think it's still quite right. Think about it: Bill Gates losing, say, ten days worth of income would flinch. Maybe. If even that. Someone who earns $1500 a month before taxes would not like to lose $500 in fines. To Bill it's a matter of the newspapers writing about record fines. To Joe Cubicle it's a matter of eating porridge and tuna & rice for a month. Nobody writing articles about that.

I think at least Norway has a somewhat similar system to ours at least on some fines. There are other countries I'm sure.

Like this $800000 fine with Bill, most laws like that still amount to a slap on the wrist even if the slap is a bit bigger than using the same fine for everyone.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Hatta]

This is an especially good idea considering how many local governments consider levying fines as a good source of revenue. Catch one billionaire in that speed trap and they'll leave the rest of us alone for a few months.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Phekko]

As a side note you might be interested to know that I have witnessed previously mentioned rich brat^H^H^H respectable gentleman doing way over the allowed speed limit in his BMW convertible a week or two ago so it's not like he learned anything more than Bill did from the "incredibly high fine" he got.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[moviepig.com]

...for fines, they use a percentage of that persons earnings or total wealth...

...which raises the question of whether fines are supposed to be punitive damages from the offender, or compensatory damages for the offended (i.e., us).

(Whichever, it should be called 'punishment capital'.)

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[(trb001)]

Exactly. For this to actually be fair, you would have to fine someone based on their net worth, not their earnings. Because most people don't "own" their house, they have a mortgage on it, they wouldn't be hit for too much...just the liquid they had plus their equity.

--trb

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Phekko]

Well, the islamic system is quite fair in this sense. You steal, they chop off your hand. Only way for this to be unfair is not to have hands, but I guess that would make stealing a bit difficult...

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[pherris]

crackshoe is right. It's kinda like Jussi Salonoja's $200,000USD speeding ticket.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[angle_slam]

How do you determine income? Gates makes less than a million a year in salary. He could still pay a 10 days worth of income fine eith the change in his couch.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[crackshoe]

Income + interest money or capital gains is how I usually think of income. Net worth may be more fucntional, but there are cases of people with low incomes but high net worth (property owners)

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you would--Europe is a leftist hellhole in which successful people are punished. As if a crime is somehow WORSE and deserving of greater punishment than someone less wealthy.

Dollars are dollars--and some people have more than others. It's irrelevant to the severity of the crime, which should be the same no matter what.

Re:Percentage, not flat fine

[crackshoe]

To feed the troll -- should the punishment be an arbitray sum of money - one that would cripple a poor person, but be shrugged off by the more wealthy? that really only makes it a crime if one isn't well off. A percentage based version would equally (or more equally) mete out punishment.

GatesTrade.com - Only a 1.6% commission!

[strictnein]

It cost Mr. Gates $800,000 to buy $50,000,000 worth of stock. So, I guess that's 1.6% commission for the SEC?

Re:GatesTrade.com - Only a 1.6% commission!

[Petronius]

the fact that Gates bought the stock alone will make the price go up which in turn will cover Billy's commission. Not a bad deal.

Re:GatesTrade.com - Only a 1.6% commission!

[Arcanix]

$800,000 minus the lawyers fees, with those included the government probably didn't come out as good as people might think.

Most likely, as usual, the only real winners here are the lawyers for both sides.

Re:GatesTrade.com - Only a 1.6% commission!

[passion]

On the other hand, the government could do this another 9 million times, and we'd have no more federal debt... but he would. :)

It's not a huge fine...

[Phidoux]

... but it's nice to know that someone is keeping and eye (or two) on him. I guess just knowing that he is being watched will also help to make him toe the line just like the rest of us have to do.

Poor Bill...

[necro2607]

I'm almost starting to feel bad for the guy...

Ahh, nevermind.

Re:Poor Bill...

[tverbeek]

The fact that he's apparently buying c.i-a'l!i|s makes me feel sorry for him. Has Melinda been disappointed by him again?

who gives a flying fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

This is petty, annoying shit. Why post it on slashdot? Really, why???
I fail to see the relevance. This is not news for nerds (unless you're a multi-billionaire nerd) nor is it stuff that matters (esp. to Bill. He's filthy loaded).

Fuck. Won't catch me paying for subscription to this retarded bullshit.

Re:who gives a flying fuck

[Duhavid]

If it is so irrelevant, why did you read it?

Bill is above the law.

[Frosty Piss]

As with other violations of anti-trust laws and agreements between MS and the DOJ, Bill and his gang really don't care because the "fine" will always amount to pennies. Billy knows that the reality is he is above the law. What needs to happen here is something more substantial like the threat of jail.

Re:Bill is above the law.

[derkaas]

For forgetting to file some required paperwork on an otherwise completely legal transaction?

Re:Bill is above the law.

[Doctor_D]

To quote "Office Space" Gates needs to be sent to Federal "Pound Me In The Ass" Prision, then he'd learn what it really feels like to have to use Micro$oft products. Otherwise you know if he got jail time, he'd go to some posh celebrity "prison" aka a resort.

Re:Bill is above the law.

[Peldor]

Yeah, but when Steven Seagal shows up out for justice, Bill's gonna be on deadly ground, possibly marked for death, and we'll find out if he's really hard to kill.

Re:Bill is above the law.

[Frosty Piss]

For forgetting to file some required paperwork on an otherwise completely legal transaction?

You do not "forget" to file paperwork in a 50 mil stock transaction. It's just Bill playing his game of "I'm so rich I really don't care. Anf FUCK YOU TOO."

Re:Bill is above the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont care if you are not rich or not b/c $800000 is a lots of money no matter who you are even iff you are the richest person on the in the world he is not aobove teh law b/c this is a big fine buttmunch

Re:Bill is above the law.

[edrugtrader]

without the planned sale paperwork, this was an insider transacting stock out of the trading window available to them.

that makes it a completely illegal transaction.

other than that knife in your face, we had a casual date... not homicide.... just ignore the knife... in YOUR FACE!

idiots.

BG pays antitrust NO MIND even when

[crovira]

its other peoples companies.

I bet he is laughing

[Anonymous Coward]

every time somebody fines him.

"Will you take cash, cheque or credit card?"

I bet he has a pety cash box just for fines.

No biggy...

[LilMikey]

...this is the same thing they were stucking to El Pres at the beginning of his term. And just like then, it's getting blown out of proportion. Not to say they both aren't slimeballs but this is just incorrectly filing paperwork. Nefarious plot to swindle bazillions from Joe Consumer? Maybe... Idiot accountant fogetting to put stamp on envelope... more likely.

Re:No biggy...

[haystor]

There is only one major reason to do what he did on purpose. That would be to get a head start accumulating stock before all the other bozos that just buy whatever he buys. Warren Buffet (through Berkshire Hathaway) have this problem in a major way. People buy whatever they buy and drive the cost of acquisition way up compared to a regular individual. In this sense Bill Gates competes at a severe disadvantage compared to others acquiring large positions.

One less diamond backscratcher

[Anonymous Coward]

Some fine that is. Just means he won't be able to buy another diamond backscratcher.

800k?

[imidazole2]

Guess he'll have to sacrifice for once in his life...

No new golden toilet bowl seat this month.

poor bill

[deviantonline]

come on, cant we just let the guy make more money!? :)

why

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally don't think he should have been fined that much. Okay sure he's worth billions, but that should not be taken into account for a fine.

He did nothing more than anyone else. He forgot some paperwork.
Anyone else would have gotten a slap on the wrist.

Pocket Change

[ryen]

According to The Bill Gates Net Worth Page, that $800,000 "slap on the wrist" is about 0.0027% of his assumed net-worth ($30,115,295,145.09)

Re:Pocket Change

[Anonymous Coward]

And more then the combined worth of every Linux company in existence, LOL!

from the drop-in-the-ocean dept.

[The Kow]

So what exactly makes this news-worthy? Is it possible that this sort of thing happens frequently? Judging by the miniscule amount of the fine in comparison to the dollar amount spent, I can't imagine why this is a significant fine (as someone else has posted, a 'disclosure oversight').

For all the griping we do about the duplicitous nature of certain 'fair and balanced' news outlets (and their ilk), it would seem we'd hold Slashdot to some sort of standard.

P.S. Yes, I know this has been hashed, rehashed, and then many times again. hash_count++

Re:from the drop-in-the-ocean dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what exactly makes this news-worthy? Is it possible that this sort of thing happens frequently?

Yes, it is possible that this sort of thing happens frequently.
.
.
.
That's what makes it news worthy.

Re:from the drop-in-the-ocean dept.

[Strange Ranger]

> For all the griping we do about the duplicitous nature of certain 'fair and balanced' news outlets (and their ilk), it would seem we'd hold Slashdot to some sort of standard.

Well the YRO section has degenerated into "We want free entertainment media". Being so unfair and unbalanced (and therefore useless) is perhaps why I just recently needed to change my sig...

EDITORS: a useless whine-fest WILL get blocked by most major corporations. Where will /. be then?

Re:from the drop-in-the-ocean dept.

[The Kow]

Yes, it is possible that this sort of thing happens frequently.
.
.
.
That's what makes it news worthy.

I know you were reaching for rhetorical value, here, but to address the unspoken question, if the news here is that this sort of thing does happen frequently, then it should be stated as such, not in an manner that indubitably furthers an agenda many people on this site already espouse to the point of religious fervor.

Re:from the drop-in-the-ocean dept.

[Bearpaw]

For all the griping we do about the duplicitous nature of certain 'fair and balanced' news outlets (and their ilk), it would seem we'd hold Slashdot to some sort of standard.

Um, for one thing, Slashdot isn't a "news outlet". It doesn't even pretend to be a news outlet, unlike the red-white-and-yellow propagandists at Faux News, et al.

For another thing, you (and several other posters who've said pretty much the same thing) are holding Slashdot to some sort of standard, or at least you're trying to. As little effect as you may have on the Slashdot slant, it'll be more of an effect than you could ever hope to have on Rupert Murdock and his unindicted co-conspirators. (Remember when false advertising used to be a crime? Ah, the good ol' days.)

Re:from the drop-in-the-ocean dept.

[The Kow]

I follow the second paragraph, but I'm a little confused on the 'news outlet' comment. If Slashdot isn't a news outlet, then:

1) What exactly does "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." mean, semantics aside?

2) Assuming the line is drawn in front of the fact that Slashdot reports news stories from other news sites, does Slashdot instead being a 'news digest' (or whatever we want to call it) really provide exemption to these standards I spoke of?

I may've been semantically misleading, but I don't think the point is lost, and I can't help but think that the confusion is trifling at best, respective to the topic at hand.

WTF

[The Bungi]

I have trouble ascertaining why this is posted to the front page.

Oh, wait. I know. Ads. More page views, more ads, mo' money. "Microsoft. Headline. Bad." Ka-chin!

What other reason could one possibly have to post this. None. None whatsoever.

Just when you think Bashdork has reached new, unexplored lows, one of these comes along and surprises you.

Re:WTF

[nolife]

I felt the same with the daily and sometimes twice daily iPod stories. I removed Apple from my /. front page preferences and now I do not see them. Of course this parent article did fall under MS (topic 109) and I understand that removing that entire section might not be the right answer so.. Not everyone finds every article noteworthy. That is part of being in such a large group.

Investing in pharmaceutical companies?

[JebuZ]

I'm not usually much of a conspiracy theorist, but this is a little odd.

What's the point...

[timothy_m_smith]

This was a fine on Gates personal investments, so why is this even /. news worthy? Yes, it is peripherally related to anti-trust matters, but it is still pointless.

I love all the conspiracy theory that pops up right away how MS is going to be selling drugs and other bs. A common investing strategy is to have a diverse portfolio and this is clearly part of that for Bill.

Re:What's the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

If MS sold drugs they'd get alot more /. support.

Re:What's the point...

[dustmite]

Oh for God's sake. You're reading the damn article, aren't you? If you don't think it's newsworthy or interesting, how did you even get this far? Why didn't you just skip it?

Welcome

[The Dobber]

to Extremely Slow Day On Slashdot

Stay tuned for exciting stories on

-Steve Balmers traffic ticket for not Yielding
-Steve Jobs buys a house plant
-Carly Fiorina reboots the reproductive system

More late breaking events as they occur....

What Billy Sees, BIlly Wants

[Ridgelift]

Let's see if Bill Gates will make a matching donation to charity, just like his billionaire pal Mark Cuban does.

"Prefer loss to the wealth of dishonest gain; the former vexes you for a time; the latter will bring you lasting remorse."

Article Troll

[andih8u]

This is probably something that's merely an oversight on behalf of his broker. Someone with as much money as Bill Gates will have a wide and varied stock portfolio, and I doubt he is able to personally oversee all of it. You see this same sort of thing happen all of the time with celebrities. Too much money and not enough time to track down where every cent goes.

Aside from that, its really sad the level that slashdot has sunk down to in its anti-microsoft smear campaign. I think in the interest of fair journalism, they should go ahead and report to us how much money they, and OSDN as their parent company, have vested in linux, and how much they stand to gain from its success. Notice how they're the first in line to bash SCO for spreading its FUD, when they're just as bad about it? Oh well, they'll just keep going about alienating everyone who isn't a frothing linux zealot and end up digging their own grave.

Re:Article Troll

[bhima]

Agreeing with the first part of your commment, I think it is common for CEO to treat these rules with contempt and I'd like to see how many do not follow the follow the rules or only skirt them...

I think the point is not just againt MS but against the wealthy!

Re:Article Troll

[mabu]

This is probably something that's merely an oversight on behalf of his broker.

But of course. A man of limited means such as Gates probably can't afford a broker that is capable of performing legally-required, due-dilligence.

Re:Article Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're the troll. This is NOT the first time he's ignored the 10% rule.

Re:Article Troll

[Oz0ne]

Love the tagline/sig there, mind if I adopt it?

Re:Article Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Help yourself :)

Re:Article Troll

[virid]

Hey, Killjoy. We're talking about Bill Gates not Windows so your anti-slashdot, linux smear campaign has sunk to a new low. This would be just as note-worthy if it were happening to Linus, but, of course, it's not.

Re:Article Troll

[anethema]

I really doubt his stock broker has the buying authority to puchase more than 10% of a companies stock all at once. This is like his stock broker decided when a hostile takeover is in order, and just doing it without consultation.

You can be fairly sure that this move had the OK from Billy, and he just doesnt care about such a paltry fine.

Re:Article Troll

[Hassman]

Actually, he probably does. Depending on the stock price, in order for Gates to get an adequate return on his investments it might be rational to buy that much of a stock.

lets say it is 20 dollars a share. for me and you 100 - 200 shares woudl be more than enough to invest in that company (that is 2000 - 4000 dollars). You think he's going to do that? No. that would be stupid. What do you think he'd buy? 1000 shares (20000 dollars woth)? Still not worth it. 10,000 shares? 100,000 shares? now we're starting to talk....

It is all about scale.

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

this has nothing to do with tech news

Who said /. was all tech news? It's "news for nerds", stated clearly in the header. Most nerds around here would see sanctions against Billy G as big news indeed.

Of course, you obviously just like to waste time trolling, or else you'd find another site dealing strictly with "tech news", line C|Net.

Re:This just shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA...this has nothing to do with Microsoft, let alone Microsoft buying stocks of a competitor. The fine is against Bill Gates, for a private stock transaction.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates fined for violating antitrust laws when he's involved with so many companies?! Wow! I can't wait till Slashdot reports that he was fined for driving at 35mph in some school zone. That'll be the clincher to convince me this man is evil!

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

sanctions against Microsoft, sure..sanctions against Bill Gates personally is not tech news...its celebrity gossip and the kind of drivel E! would report. dumbass

actually, for many people, that's less than $5

[morcheeba]

800k is 0.002% of $40B, so a $5 fine is equal if have a net worth of $250k.

Re:actually, for many people, that's less than $5

[Perren]

Yeah, and considering I have a net worth of about -$5,000, that would be like giving me 10 cents.

Re:actually, for many people, that's less than $5

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually 0.002% of 40B would be 80M. 80K would be 0.00002%, but I believe the networth is correct.

Re:actually, for many people, that's less than $5

[Anonymous Coward]

Percentage: confusing Slashdot posters since 1994.

Re:actually, for many people, that's less than $5

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to take 7th grade math again. .002% of 40B is 800k.

Re:actually, for many people, that's less than $5

[quantaman]

Actually 0.002% of 40B would be 80M. 80K would be 0.00002%, but I believe the networth is correct.


Actually the original poster was correct, it's a ratio of 1:0.00002 which converts into 0.002%

Richest man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is says in the article (yeah, I read it) that he's the richest man in the world.

But didn't we read a few weeks ago about some IKEA dude taking that spot?

So, who is the money man then?

seize the stock, blacklist from trading, etc.

[SuperBanana]

I like what some counrties do -- for fines, they use a percentage of that persons earnings or total wealth (i forget which) and calculate the fine based on that

How about seizing all the stock that you purchased, for starters? If it happens more than once, you get barred from owning any more stock? If I get caught speeding too many times, my license gets taken away...

Billy's just doing what his corporation does- paying fines as a cost of doing business, because they're so trivial.

Re:seize the stock, blacklist from trading, etc.

[fishbowl]

"How about seizing all the stock that you purchased, for starters? If it happens more than once, you get barred from owning any more stock? If I get caught speeding too many times, my license gets taken away... "

Influence your representatives in Congress to propose such a law, find some way to make the law not unconstitutional (the way you word it, it almost certainly is unconstitutional), and voilà, law of the land is according to your agenda!

Don't have any influence on your representatives? Too bad. Keep voting, and maybe eventually, the people will get back some control of government.

They'd be stupid not to.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

If you were a government that was supported entirely by taxes, wouldn't you want to audit the hell out of your richest citizen?

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

sanctions against Bill Gates personally is not tech news

Gee, you must have missed the entire point of my message when I said "it's not tech news". Try reading it again, slowly. Dumbass indeed.

Why this won't become another Martha Stewart case

[randall_burns]

Martha Stewart's donations were paltry compared to those of Microsoft.

Individual contributions are legally limited, but it is a common practice for employees of a company to be rewarded for making political donations.

The Real Question Here . . .

[Passman]

Ok fine, so he got charged 800k, but how much did it really cost him?

The whole purpose for these filings is to keep investors informed so that those who control the company can't cash out and leave the average investor holding the bag.

Given that, the real question is: if Billy Boy had filed as required, how much more would it have cost him to buy the same number of shares. If that value is more than $800k, he made money on the deal. If not, the fine was justified.

Re:$800,000 is hardly a deterrent to Gates

[Quila]

, that's peanuts to Gates. It is probably 1 week's income for the guy.

That's the point. It's simply a matter of forgetting one piece of paperwork in an otherwise completely legal stock purchase. There's no sign of any criminal intent or conspiracy, and therefore no need for a massive fine for something relatively trivial.

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you must have missed the part where I said that has nothing to do with tech news, nerd news, or otherwise...its simply a personal assault on Gates. Arguing with a zealot is pointless.

Re:$800,000 is hardly a deterrent to Gates

[Bob Uhl]

But, while $800,000 seems like a collosal, life changing amount of money to me, that's peanuts to Gates. It is probably 1 week's income for the guy.

Much less than that, I figure. Bill is currently worth about 40 billion; $800,000/$40,000,000,000 is 2.0e-5. Take your net worth and multiply it by 2.0e-5: it'll be less than a dollar if you are worth less than $50,000 (net--that means subtract liabilities from assets).

A $640K fine ought to be enough for anybody

[joeware]

So, $800K does seem to be a bit much.

Awww...

[Tree131]

Well, there's 30 seconds worth of work gone down the tubes....

Server

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh! You mean Serve Her.

Oh no!

[blackcoot]

you mean his net worth decreased from 46.6$ billion to... 46.6$ billion. hrm...

He's been into biotech for over a decade now

[mookoz]

Long before ICOS had the Cialis molecule in the pipeline they were working on a lot of other drugs. Gates was a big biotech investor in the late 80s and early 90s. He's still a big investor. Probably has to do more about longevitity than erectile dysfunction.

Of course a lot of you here probably weren't even reading the newspapers 10 years ago.

Some Sort of Standard...

[Frosty Piss]

For all the griping we do about the duplicitous nature of certain 'fair and balanced' news outlets (and their ilk), it would seem we'd hold Slashdot to some sort of standard.

Yes, well... Um... Yes. HEY! There's a, iPod story in the queue!

In other News, Bill Gates gives out Condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

... in India to Prostitutes, to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

No matter what you think about what he does to Software, this is going to save Millions of Lives, and is very necessary since the guys in Washington have effectively disallowed this kind of operation to anyone who uses Federal Funds.

Article

Touchy aren't we

[Anonymous Coward]

It's news about Bill Gates. Doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to figure out that it's 'News for Nerds'.

Now we know who's spamming!!!

[mabu]

Gates bought shares in trash-hauling company Republic Services in November 2001. The transaction put his holdings over a 10 percent threshold that required antitrust notification, the FTC said.

But Gates failed to notify antitrust authorities, believing he was exempt from the requirement because the acquisition was only for investment purposes.

Gates later made a corrected filing in the case, and the FTC declined to seek any penalties.

But six months later, Gates violated the rules again when he bought shares in ICOS, co-maker of the new impotence treatment Cialis, according to the FTC. Once again, Gates thought he was exempt from the regulation.

The FTC said it sought substantial penalties for the second mistake.

Aha! Now things are starting to make sense!

Re:Now we know who's spamming!!!

[Ravenrage]

"he bought shares in ICOS, co-maker of the new impotence treatment Cialis"...gee makes you wonder doesn't it :)

Obligatory Family Guy Quote

[strike2867]

Peter, his rich father in law, Michael Eisner, and Bill Gates in the car. They come to a toll booth and goes "Oh no...does anyone have a quarter?" and Bill Gates goes "What's a quarter?"

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing with a zealot is pointless.

Indeed

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you must have missed the part where I said that has nothing to do with ... nerd news

You actually believe you said that? Looks like you need to reread more than my message then.

its simply a personal assault on Gates.

Yes, it is. But this by no means implies that it's mutually exclusive from "nerd news".

Seriously, if you're going to troll, at least try. This amateur attempt is pitiful, even by pre-teen standards.

Some broker's secretary makes a mistake

[RhettLivingston]

in a ridiculously complicated system and all of a sudden "Bill Gates Fined $800,000". This isn't a story about Bill Gates. I'd be surprised if the overall $50 million investment was more than a blip on his radar. What's 1/600th or so of your worth to you?

Some $30K/year secretary is probably on the street for making a simple mistake. And the witchhunting mob on this and other sites is part of the reason.

Reminds me of a famous quote...

[Gzip Christ]

"Smithers, my wallet is in my left coat pocket. Oh, and I'll take that statue of Justice, too."

From Marge vs. the Monorail

Why is he buying this stock?

[Tenebrious1]

Hmm... the stock price has been dropping, has a PE of -15.96! Wonder if Bill knows something?

oh, my mistake

[andih8u]

Hopefully since reporting his personal stock buys is newsworthy here, maybe next we can cover what kind of ketchup he uses, or what his wife's bra size is. I mean, that's obviously quite worthy of being a story here now, right?

Re:oh, my mistake

[BroncoInCalifornia]

Hopefully since reporting his personal stock buys is newsworthy here, maybe next we can cover what kind of ketchup he uses, or what his wife's bra size is. I mean, that's obviously quite worthy of being a story here now, right?

What is his wife's bra size? Inquiring minds want to know!

turn the horse over

[Geoff-with-a-G]

If you're going to re-trample this same ground, at least think about it a bit more. It's pathetic that there are so many posts modded up which are one or two lines saying "Gates is really rich, so 800k doesn't mean much to him." and a few more posts saying how we should fine him in proportion to his net worth, so it'll actually discourage him.

This is idiotic. 90% of the posts don't even refer to what rule he violated, simply to the quantity of the fine. You don't give 10 years in prison for a parking ticket, regardless of how much you dislike the offender. His "crime" here wasn't that he launched some anti-competitive hostile takeover of some open-source small-business, it's that he bought some stock (some, not a controlling interest) and didn't officially notify the government about it. This is a mistake, but not an offense that warrants docking someone a week's pay, regardless of what their salary is.

Of course, those complaining about the size of the fine aren't at all interested in the law, they're simply happy to see someone they hate getting penalized and wish it was more.

Re:turn the horse over

[Hassman]

This is the most intelligent post I've read on this thread. I so wish I had mod points for you.

Re:turn the horse over

[Anonymous Coward]

But a righ person doesn't live much longer than a poor poerson, so if they bot went and did five years jail-time, they have both lost 5 years of their life.

800K could be less than the cost of announcing the purchase (stock price goes up 2% when Bill says "I will buy $50M shares). Also, 800K means that his fortune hasn't grown as quickly.

Big deal.

Is this an issue.

[spidergoat2]

I can't tell if this is just a problem of the rich and clueless, or if Bill really doesn't think that he has to abide by the rules that everyone else does.

Re:Is this an issue.

[BCW2]

Reading the article shows that he thought that this rule did not apply to him. Based on the size of the fine, it doesn't. After all most of us put a larger percentage of our net worth in our gas tanks last week.

Let's get this straight...

[jd]

$800,000 fine, over a mere $50,000,000 purchase. Or, if you prefer, $1 for every $62.50 of illegal stock.

By my estimate, if MS stock inflated by even a cent on the share, Bill Gates would have enough gain to wipe out the fine and have enough spare change to buy several additional homes.

This is before you consider the rest of his amazing wealth, the interest that is gaining, or any other aspect of this.

Re:Let's get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's get this straight.

The stock wasn't illegal. The purchase of the stock wasn't illegal. The fact that he didn't notify all the right people...now that was a no-no.

If we're gonna hose on a wealthy man (as we all should :) let's get the hosing right.

Equality Before the Law! No Immunity for MS!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Oh, sure! Martha Stewart is facing possible jail time, but Bill Gates merely pays a fine!

Interesting. The above is the most appropriate comment I have read so far, yet some moderators are trying to keep the parent post modded down.

I have to assume that most, if not all, of those moderators are the astroturfers that Microsoft pays to post on sites like Slashdot.

I guess the idea of Bill Gates actually paying for his many crimes, via a jail sentence, is too much for them.

Re:Equality Before the Law! No Immunity for MS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. The above is the most appropriate comment I have read so far, yet some moderators are trying to keep the parent post modded down.

No, you just have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, and the parent is being modded down because they are comparing two things which are entirely different.

Re:Equality Before the Law! No Immunity for MS!

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, you just have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, and the parent is being modded down because they are comparing two things which are entirely different.

The details may be different, but the original poster's central point is absolutely correct. The law is not being applied equally.

Bill Gates has committed sabotage:

> "Strategic Objective... Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market"

Bill Gates has committed consumer fraud (same link):

> "At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

Bill Gates has committed extortion:

> "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."

Those were deliberate crimes -- deliberate acts of destruction. And his crimes have been costly to us all. By sabotaging Java, Gates delayed the introduction of modern e-commerce by years, which has cost the economy $hundreds of BILLIONS -- more costly than any virus or worm.

Meanwhile, Martha Stewart sold a stock she knew would drop, and saved herself a few $hundreds of thousands. A crime, perhaps, but piddling compared to the various crimes of Gates and company.

Yet Martha goes to jail, and Gates gets a slap on the wrist.

It is an extreme case of injustice, brought about by a corrupt government (not just the Republicans), and a cowardly justice system.

Re:Drug Maker?---Correction

[multimed]

Bill gates is now known for investing in non-tech companies such as John Deere

This diversification along with his philanthropy through his foundation (though sometimes self-serving) is a relatively new thing. For many many years, what always shocked me was his decidedly undiversified portfolio. He kept an extremely high percentage of his total wealth in Microsoft stock for a very long time. While it could certainly have backfired and any financial advisor would say it was foolish and overly risky, it is the single biggest reason he is the richest man in the world and not 2 or 3. Paul Allen diversified very early on and had a much more balanced portfolio but also got blown away by Gates and his MSFT only holdings.

Re:Big surprise...

[Lord Kano]

I got the first post, bitch! My second in about 6 years of Slashdotting.

You fail it.

LK

Copyright doesn't work that way...

[Allen Zadr]

" ...copyrighted his artwork after he found out about the use."

That's not possible. Copyright is implicit upon creation. There is no specific procedure for copyright to exist. I create, I have the right to copy. You create, you have the right to copy.

No copyright notice needs to be given. No explicit copyright need to be posted.

Educate yourself.

What this artist did was to post copyright licensing terms after the use. Without such licensing terms, then one must request permission before making any reproduction of that material.

Re:Copyright doesn't work that way...

[PCM2]

That's not possible. Copyright is implicit upon creation.

Yes, but in the United States, registering copyright provides additional benefits. That may be what the original poster is referring to; in some cases I believe you can actually register after a violation and still gain some benefits.

Trolled into responding

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it go? Did you even read the blurb?

"bought more than $50 million worth of stock in ICOS Corp."

If you want to find out what ICOS does with it go visit their website. You'll probably find something there to help with your condition.

In other news:

[BigMattG]

Bill Fucking Gates has to swing by the fucking ATM on his way home.

I think, relative to net worth, I put more in the parking meter this morning.

Re:In other news:

[slothman32]

I computed once his net worth relative to mine and I figured out that a penny to my worth is more than a regular house, about $200k, to his. Most people don't think twice about picking up a penny, but they would "die" if they lost their house. He appearently wouldn't.

Remember, That $40B is not fully liquid

[NotQuiteReal]

I know everyone loves to hate Bill, but consider that about 75% of his wealth is MSFT paper.

Just out of curiosity, what if he did want to cash in? What would happen?

I don't know, but I imagine he'd have to file all sorts of paper work to let everyone know he was selling all his MSFT shares. That would probably freak out the market and the price would drop.

So now his $30 Billion in MSFT is now something less... say $20 Billion for the sake of argument.

There is no way to shelter that, so now he has $20 in cash - What are the taxes on that? Is that a 15% capital gain? Pay the Feds $3Billion. Man, I'd be crying to write that check, no matter how much I had. Next, cue up the State of Washington...

Just idle mind games. I am sure that wealth will get distributed into various trusts, etc. Before Bill passes away, and never be taxed much. [BTW I see this as a good thing, even if you don't like this particular guy. It is hard to accumulate that much wealth, and it is far more interesting to see what will be done with it, rather than governments pissing it away, IMHO]

Gates can get the 800k out of his sofa!

[DurendalMac]

He loses more money when he leaves chunk change in his pockets and puts the pants through the wash!

Whose fault?

[ChrisMaple]

If you were Bill Gates would you be filling out these forms yourself? He undoubtedly has investment counselors whose job it is to scout good opportunities, get approval from Gates, and take care of the paperwork. Somebody needs to lose his job.

Re:Whose fault?

[Quila]

Somebody needs to lose his job.

Exactly. Someone not doing the right paperwork just cost Bill $800K. Not good. But like with tax preparers, it's always your fault in the end if something isn't right.

Re:Perfect for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

10% fine on $0 revenu is another strength of open source!

the reason for the small fine

[avandesande]

Perhaps he got a slap on the wrist because the transaction had little or no relevence to antitrust.

Maybe if he was buying stock in red hat or adobe the fine would of been greater??

Three words.

[karzan]

Diminishing marginal utility.

Basic concept from microeconomic theory: the more you have of something, say for example money, the less each additional unit is worth to you. The marginal utility a person who makes $1 a day gets from a $1 is absolutely massive (life changing experience) compared to the marginal utility a billionare gets (almost nothing).

Adjusting fines and taxes to higher income is not discrimination, it's recognition of the fact that not every dollar is equal.

Re:Three words.

[bonch]

Adjusting fines and taxes to higher income is not discrimination.

Yes, it is. It sounds like you're one of those people who want to punish others for being successful, but just because someone makes more money than someone else doesn't mean if they commit a crime, their punishment should be magically higher than the normal middle-class guy.

Why should I have to pay more just because I make more money? Are you saying you're going to determine for me how much I value my dollars?

I guess I just believe in the law being equal for everyone. Crazy me.

Re:Three words.

[karzan]

Yes, this is exactly about the law being equal for everyone.

The value of money is not intrinsic, but comes from what it can be used for, its purchasing power. But the value of its purchasing power is directly related to the utility people can derive from it: if the only thing you could buy with money was a manure, it would have value only for farmers, everyone else would want nothing to do with it.

If the law takes the same quantity of money away from two groups of people who derive different use values from this quantity (e.g. the farmers and the non-farmers) then it is not acting equally, because the non-farmers couldn't care less and therefore while a meaningless quantity of money has been taken away from them, no actual value has. For the law to act equally, it must apply based on the real value of the money, not based on a simple quantitative measurement that is, by itself, meaningless.

This is not about me determining for you how much you value your dollars. This is about a realistic assessment of the economic function of money and an actual assessment based on real data and many decades of studies of consumer behaviour. The fact is, consumers do, time and time again, exhibit characteristics corresponding to diminishing marginal utility. Should we simply ignore this mountain of data and assume that people have unending appetites for everything they consume? This seems unreasonable and unscientific.

It is a plain and simple error to construe money as a measure of value that simply maintains the same marginal value no matter what the number. No economist would actually agree with it, and for good reason.

Re:Three words.

[EinarH]

their punishment should be magically higher than the normal middle-class guy.

As someone pointed out above the punishment is not magically higher than in other cases.
In order for the punishment to have any effect there need to be some kind of (struggling to find the correct word in English) deterrence (sp?).

I guess I just believe in the law being equal for everyone. Crazy me.

The law is the same for everyone.
The punishment is different.
That might sound odd, but if you think about it that's not so stupid after all in cases like this.

Famous Last Words

[Saturninus]

I'm not a crook!

He needs a personal finance *department*

[swb]

With as much money as Gates' has, and as diverse as his holdings probably are, it seems like it would be *trivial* to oversee some detail or other, particularly when the amounts being traded are almost always at the level where all the most nitpicky SEC rules apply.

With the Powerball lottery getting way up there again, we were talking about what would happen if you won it, and whether we'd quit our jobs or not. I said I'd be inclined to keep my job, just to be bothersome to management ("Sorry I'm late, those Ferrari's just suck in the snow"), but we all kind of agreed that just keeping track of a diversified portfolio of 90-some million dollars would become a full-time job.

You could always hire an accountant, a broker and a lawyer, and then another accountant, lawyer and broker to audit the other three, but even that would be a big job.

At Gates' level of wealth, he almost needs to retain Deloitte or Ernst just to keep his checkbook balanced.

Re:$800,000 is hardly a deterrent to Gates

[dr_canak]

I hear ya,

It's just frustrating that Gates can "forget" this kind of stuff and walk away relatively unscathed. The tin foil hat in me says he (or his staff of attorneys and advisors) knew darn well what paper work is to be filed, and simply decided to skip it in an attempt to avoid any additional attention.

Here at the VA, conventional wisdom says not to ask for permission cause its a lot easier to apologize than it is to get permission in the first place ;-). It seems like the same kinda thing here, except Gates has already been under the microscope for anti-trust violations and I wish they be a little more vigilant in his case.

jeff

nothing to do with the government's....

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing to do with the government's massive antitrust battles with Microsoft

My Aunt Tillie's ass!!!

This has everything to do with any antitrust actions. It's just another bit of evidence that Bill Gates thinks rules are for other people.

High Powered Fine

[po8]

Dr. FTC: We will fine him almost...[holds pinky to corner of mouth] one million dollars!

Think bigger

[Fussen]

From my stand point, I am starting to see some surprising resemblences here between the OS's.

Computer OS & Human OS.

MS is aiming to have our world as a total 1 stop conglomerate-([n] a group of diverse companies run as a single organization). And if you think big enough, you can take that beyond the computational operating system and apply the same business practices to the Human Race operating system.

I ask you to ponder about this for 30 seconds. And in 30 seconds, can you even vaguely see it?

I sure as Hell hope that what I am seeing is not true and that I am say a full load of Sh*t.
But the problem is , that if I a, single man can vision this all by myself, What do you think the worlds richest most influential man is visioning?

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

Re:Think bigger

[Sn_wC_t]

I think you've had too much Snow Crash!

Re:Why this won't become another Martha Stewart ca

[Hassman]

No. Matha Stewart used illegal insider trading to make money.

Bill Gates bought a stock (probably on recommendation from his broker) and failed to notify the govt of his purchase...in fact, his broker probably failed to notify the govt. of the purchase, but Gates is untimatly responsible for this.

This is totally different.

Clutch sig...

[gosand]

May you go marching in three measure time, dressed up as asses, drunk to the nines.

You deserve a "+1 cool" for having a Clutch song lyric in your sig. Now pass that mic....

Caring for Poor People

[SEWilco]

Pronoun trouble: Which "This Money" do you refer to?

• All of Gates' money?
  • Some goes to taxes. Discussing what happens then is a separate matter.
  • Gates spends some money for his own needs, which goes to stores and companies who spend some on employee payroll and supplies.
  • Some of his money is simply in banks, who earn the money the banks need by lending and investing it.
  • Some of his money is invested, such as in stocks. A fraction goes to investment advisors and stock brokers. This is gambling money, as the value varies.
  • A lot of his money is still in Microsoft, as it is in the form of Microsoft stock. Microsoft is using the money until the company chooses to buy it back. The value to Gates varies with the price in the stock market, but he can't give it to others until he gets cash. Well, "he" is giving indirectly to others -- the workers which the company pays.
  • Gates is giving some of his money away to what he thinks is a good purpose, whether that agrees with your "poor people" purpose or not.
  • He gives some to foundations and organizations, and I'm sure he gives other money away directly and in tips.
  • Gates has given some of his money to at least one foundation, which gives some away. Some foundations are given enough money to invest it, and can then give away those profits forever.
  • When Gates dies, some money will go to taxes and some to foundations and people. People with the money will do similar things. Eventually, some descendants will choose to become philanthropists and mostly give money away, feeding it to organizations and individuals.
  • Some goes to the activism industry, and is out of his control.
• The money Gates spent on these stock purchases?
  • The money Gates spent went to whoever he bought the stock from. This might be the company, which is spending it to maintain its business. This might be private individuals, who will spend it in various ways.
• The money given to the government to pay the fine?
  • Ask the government what is done with it.

Re:Caring for Poor People

[foobsr]

Anyone else having trouble identifiing whether this is artful cynicism or rhetoric ?

CC.

Re:Caring for Poor People

[SEWilco]

Anyone else having trouble identifiing whether this is artful cynicism or rhetoric ?

Yeah, I'm having the same problem.

Re:Caring for Poor People

[foobsr]

Yeah, I'm having the same problem.

THNX :)

CC.

Yes Too Low

[nurb432]

The % of the fine relative to the purchase was too low, not the % relative to his income as most people here will claim...

Compared to the purchase, it was somewhere less then 2%, which i bet will be nothing compared to the % of return he gets during sale. This is what i see as the problem, not that he has a bizzilion in the bank.

At least as far as I'm concerned thats how it should work.... But i dont make the rules.

Poor Bill

[slashdotjunker]

I fell kind of sorry for Bill. This is unfair for him. WHOA! Don't hit that Flamebait button, hear me out.

Let's adjust his approximate net worth of $40B for a middle class person with a new worth of $1M (Someone who might purchase stock regularly). A $50M investment for Bill is equivalent to $1,250. How would you like to report to the SEC everytime you bought $1,250 worth of stock?

In other news...

[Cytlid]

...I was fined 3 cents for peeing on the sidewalk.

Boy, I won't do that again.

Re:In other news...

[whathappenedtomonday]

...where i'm from, that might cost you 30-50 bucks. anyways, i was going to make the same point, but then wouldn't bother. still, i wonder how anyone would effectively want to fine BG - its like no matter what he pays, it's never quite enough to really hurt. once it were, it would become impossible/illegal (not only because of the jobs at microsoft it would put at risk...).

Even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cub reporter: Mr. Carnegie, how much money do you have?

Andrew Carnegie: Six or seven million, I think.

Cub reporter: I just read a report that said you had over 200 million dollars.

Andrew Carnegie (winks to other reporters): Oh, I thought you meant on me.

Bill's Revenge

[Mignon]

Gates' revenge is that he's going to pay the fine by donating $800M worth of MS software to the US government.

Re: had filed as required...

[airdrummer]

just caught a bite on local news that chairman bill's blaming an aide for forgetting to file...guess m$s s/w isn't up 2 the task, either;-)

Re:So what? - CORRECTION

[AyeRoxor!]

yeah yeah, .00002 is 2 thousandths of a percent, or 2 hundred-thousandths of the original value.

Symantic this. ;-)

love to beat the trolls

There is no news here. His trust fucked up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates is not Mr Burns. He doesn't sit around calling the shots on his investment account like some daytrader. Furthermore, this is probably a blind trust due to the fact that information of a *personal* investment in any technology stock, by Mr Gates, is likely material news in and of itself and influence the price.

There is no news here. The guys running his trust fucked up, and they're probably the ones paying. Why? Because otherwise Bill can just take his business elsewhere.

Actually

[roman_mir]

Other than to laugh at and make fun of Bill Gates, who - I don't think anyone is making fun of BG here, I think we are making fun of the US guvm't in this case who are applying such a ridiculously miniscule fine to this case.

Viagra II

[Openstandards.net]

ICOS company profile: "The Group applies its integrated approach to erectile dysfunction" I can't help but wonder how he's going to balance his anti-spam stance with his pro-Viagra II investment.

Re:Viagra II

[Gamma]

Go to www.cialis.com and look closely at the logo in the lower right corner of the page. His investment is already producing returns (and erections).

why not just.....

[zogger]

...confiscate all the stock? The government doesn't seem to have any problem confiscating poor and middle class peoples tangible possessions when they "break" some law. In fact, in many places now, cops just steal your cash if you are carrying it and it's the "officers" opinion you shouldn't have "that much" on you, and even if you can PROVE you got it legally, in a lot of cases they still don't give it back to you. The law theory is personal property is a legal fiction and has no rights. Once it is confiscated by the police, it is "guilty" by default, opposite if you get arrested. Theory anyway.

That just do NOT happen to billionaires. Not too often anyway..

As to Gates, no one can tell me his accountants didn't know what they were doing was illegal. I mean, I never owned one share of anything in my life and I know you're supposed to report major deals like that. The only obvious conclusion then is they thought the potential fine was worth the risk and profits, and/or Gates himself ordered it to go down that way.

I personally *despise* the man, he represents a lot of what is wrong with corporate america, and it usually starts at thetop. He's a pirate, always been a pirate, a thief and bully. He just robs other corporations and entire groups of people, that's the only difference between him and some street mugger, IMO.

ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

I know if I had just spent $50 million illegally I would be PISSED about an 800k fine!!

Note that the $50,000,000 stock purchase was not undone, just ethically and legally wrong...

You don't have to be an Econ major.

[ghjm]

It's really simple.

Behind Door Number One there is $50 billion dollars in cash.

Behind Door Number Two there is also $50 billion dollars in cash, but there are also fifty thousand full-time employees who make and sell hundreds of different products in dozens of different countries, producing $30+ billion in sales revenues, every year. In addition there's God alone knows how many buildings, computers, vehicles, and for all we know maybe secret alien technology borrowed from the Grays. The collective opinion of Wall Street - which doesn't even know about the UFOs - is that the whole thing is worth maybe $250 billion.

Bill Gates doesn't own 10% of what's behind Door Number One, he owns 10% of what's behind Door Number Two. And he also owns a bunch of other less spectacular stuff. Put it all together and it sort of makes sense, although his personal net worth is still frequently overstated.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of his net worth is in unrealized gains. It's taken him many years and a great deal of regulatory effort to get his holdings down from 20% to 10%, and it was probably only possible because he was doing it to fund charitable efforts and other investments. The difference between Bill's net worth and Microsoft's cash is that Bill can't buy a Nimitz-class carrier task group and invade Panama, but Microsoft (at least in theory) could.

-Graham

Re:You don't have to be an Econ major.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In addition there's God alone knows how many buildings, computers, vehicles, and for all we know maybe secret alien technology borrowed from the Grays."

My next door neighbours have secret alien technology? Damn, I knew they were wierd. Not like my other neighbour, the Zeta-Reticulans. I do enjoy their friendly probing.

Percentage Fines

[localman]

I was thinking the other day that when it comes to the law, fines should always be calculated as a percentage of your income. Being rich comes with all sorts of great advantages, but being able to ignore criminal penalties because the fee is so small shouldn't really be one of them.

I thought of this mainly in the fact that when I was poor, a speeding ticket could ruin my budget for months, whereas now I am pretty well off and couldn't give a damn about a $100 ticket. I'm not much of a speeder anyways, but it just doesn't make sense that the penalty is less meaningful to me just because I make more money.

I know there are punative damages in civil cases (which are great, but shouldn't go to the plaintiff as they do now). Is there any similar system in criminal cases? Certainly not in most fines that I see -- they're flat.

Just a wondering...

Re:Percentage Fines

[16K Ram Pack]

My father once told me about a case of a judge at our local court giving a really rich land owner jail time for a drink-drive offence, because he felt that the maximum financial penalty would be pointless.

Gates makes that much monthly just defecating...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this will encourage him to chop-chop on those poddy breaks, eh?

Sure you laugh at Bill...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but you try managing a multi-billion dollar portfolio and see how easy it is!

Janet Jackson at the Superbowl

[bonch]

Hell, there's a whole cross-section of people who will never, ever get past "It was just a breast!" before you ever convince them that it wasn't the breast that was the problem, it was the out-of-context exposure with no warning to parents who dared not want to raise children whose idea of a good time is ripping the shirts off of women during oversexualized dance routines.

I mean, if you did that to a woman on the street, it'd be sexual assault. Do it in front of millions of people during a publicly televised Superbowl broadcast, and it's "just a breast." Same with "It's just a blowjob," like you said.

Re:Why this won't become another Martha Stewart ca

[randall_burns]

As someone that actually worked on an investigation of an extremely wealthy person(Bill Griffin, CEO of Riscorp)IMHO virtually _any_ wealthy person can be convicted of _something_ if there is sufficient motivation to open an investigation. I personally support the conviction of Ms. Stewart--but I think the reason why that investigatino proceeded was the motivation and political ineptness of Ms. Stewart rather than the degree of the actual wrongdoing. Likewise, Mr. Gates' anti-trust problems went away when he and lots of his employees made the "right" donations. In the present climate, I don't think there is motivation to mount an appropriate investigation.

Pssst--VA Linux

[bonch]

Look at who owns Slashdot. It's in VA Linux's best interests to own a "tech news" site that, instead of posting real tech news, just posts version number upgrades of Linux software intermingled with bogus anti-"M$" rants that always twists the facts to sport their propaganda.

Why should I really care?

[Colz Grigor]

I'm a Linux fan and a Microsoft hater. I don't bash Microsoft, I just vehemently object to its existence. I do the same when it comes to Bill Gates' business strategies and customer consciousness (or lack thereof).

But really, people. This guy's got a ton of money that gets invested for him by his mob of finance monkeys. Ultimately, he pays the price when one of them screw up, but do you really think that he called his broker and insisted on this deal?

Okay, so he screwed up by hiring some folks that didn't do their research prior to making an investment in his name, but let's not harrangue the guy for it. There are much better reason for which to lambast Bill Gates!

::Colz Grigor

P.S. - If we spent as much time focusing on what we could do to make Open Source superior to Microsoft's crap as we do on on poking fun at Microsoft's crap, we might actually have had fully superior products by now...

Well, look at the story icon!

[bonch]

It's a freaking borg. This may have been "funny" back in 1998, but it's just dumb and silly now.

Re:Well, look at the story icon!

[errxn]

I couldn't agree more. When new people or journalists in search of information or background for a story come to this site and see that and the broken Windows icon, the first conclusion that they're likely to make is that they won't find much of an objective nature here, i.e. "Oh, this is just a site for a bunch of zealots, nevermind".

Now, it's true that the forum is opinions and commentary, as it should be, but should this extend to the stories and visual icons of the site? One is much less likely to believe someone with an obvious agenda, and I think that's why behavior like this does more to hurt the editors' objectives than to further them.

The obvious question then becomes...

[bonch]

What are YOU doing for starving children, then? Have you sponsored one overseas? Donating to charities? Funded any research?

Or are you like everyone else, just making a living, and helping out when you can?

"convicted monopolist"

[bonch]

What does that mean? That you're declared a monopoly? That's not illegal.

If you said "abusive monopoly," that would be another thing. But "convicted monopolist" doesn't really mean anything.

Repeat after me

[Anonymous Coward]

HE JUST DIDN'T FILE A TRANSACTION FORM ON TIME.

Give me a fucking break. You just hate "M$" and think Linux is the golden child.

But

[bonch]

But this is Slashdot! Didn't you read the headline? "BILL GATES FINED $800,000 OVER STOCK PURCHASES!!"

This is clearly News for Nerds and Stuff That Matters. I'd definitely rather read about this than, say, a controversial paper on Linux security, or some Diebold news. Or hell, even NES-themed Gameboy Advance, complete with classic NES game releases to coincide, all coming out in June.

After all, those wouldn't be interesting at all and certainly aren't newsworthy...

Re:Why this won't become another Martha Stewart ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. Martha Stewart did insider trading on purpose. Bill Gates mistakenly violated some SEC protocol (that is designed to stop large-scale insider trading, but is not a 100% indication of any wrong-doing). Certainly this technical violation sparked further investigation that turned up nothing more and the matter was stopped there.

It's like the difference between speeding at 135mph downtown during rush hour and speeding 65mph in a country lane. One is criminal dangerous driving, the other is breaking the speed limit.

OK, that's just silly...

[Guppy06]

"CNN Money is reporting that Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 for violating antitrust waiting period for stock purchases. The department alleged that Gates bought more than $50 million worth of stock in ICOS Corp."

So they fine him less than 2% of the value of the stock he purchased? Most states have a sales tax higher than that!

If you want to punish him, take away all of the stock he bought illegally, all $50 million of it. Done and done.

ICOS

[tgraupmann]

Why get charged now? ICOS went bust. He lost his money.

Treble puni's

[rice_burners_suck]

800K? That's nothing. I think they need to invent a new kind of legal remedy. Some of you know about the separate existance of punitive damages and treble damages.

They need to invent treble punitive damages. In other words, the court figures out what amount of damage award will hurt the defendant (punitive), and then triple that amount (treble) to come up with the final answer.

Oh, and did I mention that all treble punitive damages would be paid directly to the free software foundation?

Two sides

[Felinoid]

On one side Bill Gates has over the years demonstrated contempt twords anything or anyone who dosen't do things his way.
On the other hand this is a minnor mistake and IMAO the SEC is being overly strict.

So basicly it's a tyrent (Bill Gates) getting a tast of his own medicen (SEC).

I don't like it when anyone tells me how to live my life. Be it my government or my products.

The diffrence is I can't uninstall US government and boot Utopia instead.

it's also less than 1.6% of the $50mn+ deal

[gotan]

That's what i find most disturbing: There's a deal over $50 million and the fine is such a small percentage that it's really neglible.

The big numbers look impressive, but if you made a wrongful $50,000 deal and got fined $800 or if you made a $50 deal and got fined $0.80, wouldn't you laugh it off and gleefully hand over that "fine"? This fine is totally out of proportion, BG probably just considers it a small tax he has to figure in in future transactions of that kind.

Nyeah

[turgid]

That's one of those home-made "rules" that really annoys me, like the one about not being allowed to buy anything until you've been around the board 3 (or 5) times. Foo. I have the rules somewhere. And those people that throw the dice when in jail, don't get a double and then pay their 50. You're supposed to pay the 50 then go, or try for a double. And don't get me started on the cretins who try to put 4 houses on one space and none of the others in a set...."Oh look, I've got Mayfair, I'll put a hotel on it." But you haven't got Park Lane!!!! And you have to pay for 4 houses on each of them first. That'll cost you 1600+200 for the hotel. Make that a round 2k for hotels on both. Oh, you've only got 352? Bad luck.

Re:Nyeah

[Guppy06]

"That's one of those home-made "rules" that really annoys me,"

Ah, but Bill gets to abuse his monopoly powers, which means he makes up the rules as he goes along.

Relevant...eh...maybe

[MacFury]

It's nice to support companies that aren't run and staffed by assholes. Since slashdot readers have to deal with Windows we should know a bit about Microsoft's leaders.

For example, if Joe of Joe's roofing is a child molester who likes to kill bunnies and burn down buildings, I don't think I'll have him working on my roof, no matter how competent a roofer he is.

Notarize, not register, copyrights

[solprovider]

you can actually register after a violation and still gain some benefits.

There is no reason to register most copyrights until there is a violation. If you are going to distribute it, have the work notarized to prove when it existed. Notary publics are inexpensive compared to registration. The registration is only desirable if you are going to sue. Registration allows triple damages and recovery of legal fees, which is a good investment and threat if going to court. The notarized copy serves as evidence as well as the registration does.

You can have songs notarized for a couple of dollars. Registering a song (and most other works) is $30. ($100 if you use my IP lawyer.) You may attempt to register songs yourself, but do not do it unless there is a chance for court or profits (when your lawyers are already involved so $30 is insignificant.) $30 per song aggregates into much money if you are a prolific artist and registering all your work.

You can have software notarized for tens of dollars. Registering a software program is $300. ($650 if you use my IP lawyer. I forget what additional charges beyond the basic $30 registration are required, but that is why I have a lawyer.) You really want a lawyer before registering software to make certain that the registration is defensible, and that you are not providing more than is necessary. There is a maximum of 50 pages for a software registration; it is usually the first and last 25 pages, but you can mask and/or delete enough to make the code unusable and still have a valid registration. My lawyer recommends deleting every 20th line, then masking anything critical like hardcoded keys. (IANAL, and I highly recommend you get one if you are filing registrations.)