Slashdot Mirror
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 $50 million worth of stock in ICOS Corp. through his personal investment trust and failed to notify antitrust officials about the purchase, as required." It's also clarified: "The technical incident has nothing to do with the government's massive antitrust battles with Microsoft."
It's not like doesn't have the money. Fining him 800k is like fining me 5$.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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
$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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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?!?
Bill gates is known for investing in non-tech companies such as John Deere.
Where was Mitnick when we really needed him?
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.
"Gates was stymied in his efforts to pay the fine when nobody in the courtroom could give him change for $1 million." /obvious
--- Where's my car, and why are these grass stains on my pants?
what is Bill Gates interested in a drug making/researching company for?
For the same reason Martha Stewart was interested in ImClone. Drug companies have huge potential in share price gain as they tend to copyright everything, and sell at huge margins... provided, of course, their product gets past the FDA.
Remember, it was Bill Gates the person that bought the stock and got fined, not Micro$oft.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
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
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
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?
Casual Games/Downloads
I'm almost starting to feel bad for the guy...
Ahh, nevermind.
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
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
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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Maybe my wife is right...
.net care package and some servers to their IT department as well.
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
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
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)
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++
Moo
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.
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.
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.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
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....
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.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
800k is 0.002% of $40B, so a $5 fine is equal if have a net worth of $250k.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
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...
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
So, $800K does seem to be a bit much.
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.
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.
Hmm... the stock price has been dropping, has a PE of -15.96! Wonder if Bill knows something?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
You just chose the wrong department to file paperwork incorrectly with.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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.
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.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
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.
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
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.
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...
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!
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...