Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat Vs. The Lawyers

ajs writes "On July 13, Red Hat announced that they would be re-stating their revenues for the last 3 years. This sent a shock-wave through their stock price, but early analysis seems to indicate that it's not that big a deal (the end-result is the same for a given contract, but it will be counted toward a different month). But then the really bad news hit. [Opportunistic lawyers] are taking this opportunity to punish Red Hat for reporting the change and the resulting drop in price. Red Hat is doing well, but can they weather major class action law suits without harming the business? How have other technology companies dealt with this sort of suit?"

475 comments

  1. No wonder books get cooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's no wonder some companies cook their books. Sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    I'd really hate to see Red Hat take a huge hit from something stupid like this.

    1. Re:No wonder books get cooked by snarfer · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was at a company that went public around the same time. We received all kinds of warnings about making statements and hyping the company, and then watched as Red Hat DID all the things we were warned against doing.

      So good for the lawyers! A lot of people lost a lot of money because Red Hat was hyping its stock.

    2. Re:No wonder books get cooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    3. Re:No wonder books get cooked by tekunokurato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The company went public in 99, and the revenue restatement is for three years. This means that, in their opinion at least, they were not hyping their revenue potential during or following the IPO. Realize that there's a difference between saying "we can achieve X" and "we have achieved X." One is forward looking, and the way the market was going then, who knew? At least, it was acceptible to think that way. The other, though, is booking revenue that a reasonable audit would show is probably unavailable, either because of rebating, non-paying customers, etc, and then continuing to do it for three years.

      In my opinion, good, let the lawyers sue them (even if I do like RHAT), but not because they were hyping their stock.

    4. Re:No wonder books get cooked by CrankinOut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      External auditors and corporate attorneys are evaluated not on their business acumen, but the degree to which they can reduce or eliminate risk. It is the business's board and management that then decides how much risk to take by not accepting some of those recommendations. "To avoid the risk of an car accident, one should not drive a vehicle on a busy street. Compare that to "Don't drive the wrong way down a busy street." The first is a legal but risk averse statement and the second is a statement of illegality and bears a legal penalty. An accident can occur under both circumstances. As I read their financial announcement, it appears that the numbers are non-zero, but do not affect significantly any major determinants of financial or business viability nor any actions meant to defraud investors. It appears that the effect of the announcement leads to the knee jerk reaction of some investors which leads to a drop in price which leads to law suits which leads to increased expenses which leads to far more financial effect than the original event as investors react to the law suits and their costs. Regarding snarfer's company's decisions, that probably reflects a more conservative, risk-averse management team. It doesn't directly follow that the company's failure was due to another company's success. Companies gain competitive advantage by taking risks. They can keep the advantage by delivering products that customers want.

    5. Re:No wonder books get cooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. There was clearly no justification for the ridiculously high share prices of certain firms (including Red Hat) during the .com bubble, but this was clear from the available data, and people who lost money in what was little more than a lottery have only themselves to blame.

      On the other hand, reporting misleading financial data (the only thing shareholders have to guide their investment choices) is very serious, and I hope the lawyers suing Red Hat achieve a just settlement (I'm not prejudging Red Hat, whom I neither like nor dislike, so 'just' doesn't mean I hope Red Hat are found guilty, but rather that the truth, whatever it may be, is exposed).

    6. Re:No wonder books get cooked by bob_herrick · · Score: 1

      At last, a topic in which I am an expert!. This stuff happens all the time. There is a cottage - read massive skyscraper - industry in suing tech comapanies on earnings surprises. Red Hat undoubtedly buys Director's and Officers' insurance, albeit with a high deductible, I'm sure, and will turn this problem over to the insurers, who will do their ordinary stellar job of handling the situation (i.e., waiting for Red Hat to sue them for coverage...). There is hardly a tech-oriented company in the US that hasn't had at least one of these. Being a white-hat is no protection.

  2. What?! by SQLz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Coupled with this disclosure, the Company also revealed that it was the subject of a review of its Form -10K by the SEC.

    This is freaken sad. SCO has not been investigated by the SEC by Redhat was? My tax dollars at work.

    1. Re:What?! by Nemo+Black · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Has anyone considered the possibility that Microsquash may be backing some of these lawyers?

    2. Re:What?! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well even if the SEC weren't involved, Redhat had a rough 2004 by pulling the plug of the redhat distro in favor of the corporate version and fedora. I know so many diehard fans going the way of debian and suse. Losing fan base will kill your company faster than the SEC.

    3. Re:What?! by hendersj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Huh? Reports are that SCO is being investigated by the SEC...

      See This story on Newsforge for some info about it, reported back in March...

      --
      Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
    4. Re:What?! by dekemoose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Losing fan base doesn't hurt a company. Losing customer base does. Red Hat is definitely losing status as the favored distro among people with servers in their basement. We'll see if they can manage with the folks who have servers in a datacenter.

    5. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has sco violated the law to warrant being investigated by the SEC? Did SCO restate any if its Form 10k's. Or do you just hate SCO because they are making trouble for some linux adopters?

    6. Re:What?! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My first thought. But I'm sure they didn't need much encouragement as they will likely suck up major fees anyway. Class action lawsuits these days really are abused, and hopefully anyone that thinks they were materially affected will realize that they have very little to gain in the end if they join the class. But, yes, unfortunately this does suck.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    7. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dope.

    8. Re:What?! by hendersj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For many tech companies, fan base = customer base. Or at the very least, the fan base strongly influences the purchases made from the customer base.

      Lose the fan base, there's a very good chance you'll lose your customer base. Customers are fans, too.

      --
      Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
    9. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what have you got against Microsoft! What are you, a Linux drone? Every time something happens to a Linux company, it's always Microsoft's fault. Just because we have the market share and produce the best software around, everyone jumps on us, but nobody is critical of Linux which is nothing more than a UNIX rip-off, so stop your griping.

    10. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The argument is that SCO misrepresented it's IBM lawsuit in various public statements, in order to give the impression that it was about "owning Linux", when it's really mostly a contract dispute.

      Of course, the SEC isn't going to do anything about it until SCO loses the lawsuit, by which time it won't matter.

      OTOH, RedHat didn't do their accounting correctly, which is something the SEC can come down on right away.

    11. Re:What?! by 0racle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Customers are often far more pragmatic then fans. When Red Hat ditched Red Hat Linux in favor of RHEL, the fans whined and went to Debian, whereas customers thought for a moment and realize RHEL had better support and were therefor happier.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    12. Re:What?! by Spetiam · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know so many diehard fans going the way of debian and suse.

      Though I never was a diehard fan of RedHat, I always gave them a try. Every release they had since 7.1 I've downloaded, installed and run (briefly...I've never had much luck with RedHat), including Fedora Core 1. But that was it. Fedora Core 1 killed RedHat forever in my eyes. Since then it's been Slackware (on my old hardware) and, as you mention, SuSE as my desktop install.

      To be entirely honest, I've kinda written off RedHat. I just don't care much what happens to them, one way or the other.
    13. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just becasue RHAT pedals open source products doesn't mean the business people running the joint have any more integrity than the next enron/mci worldcom/arthur anderson/etc.

      Besides, FreeBSD is _the one_.

    14. Re:What?! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Wrong. I saw no evidence from these articles of any substantial investigation into RedHat by the SEC, just that they had posed some questions previously that were apparently legitimate since the company did restate their earnings. You may be confused - a class action lawsuit is brought in civil court by lawyers (the aforementioned "ambulance chasers" to use the deragatory for this type of lawyer) who claim to represent the aggrieved class of shareowners. Generally these lawsuits end up benefitting the lawyers more than they do the losing shareholders, and this has nothing to do with SEC investigations.

    15. Re:What?! by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First, my opinion is that Red Hat is coming back from this hardship nicely. They are doing an excellent job of determining where their holes in product lines are and filling them.

      I was one of the very vocal opponents of Red Hat dropping their standard distro in favor of Fedora, but I have largely changed my mind.

      The only real issue is that one of my RedHat servers is running 7.x because Red Hat 8 had a glibc bug that prevented one of the programs from working properly, and upgrading to Fedora is going to be *tough.* I wish they made it easy at least to upgrade from RH9 to Fedora (Hear that RedHat?).

      Now regarding this lawsuit, the SEC, etc. I find it encouraging that they are stating that the SEC must *review* (not *investigate*) their accounting statements. In other words, the SEC must probably approve the changes.

      OTOH, the investigation into SCO so far looks more serious. It seems plain that the SEC is conducting a mostly secret investigation, as evidenced by the reports of Baystar being investigated for their involvement. In otherwords, the review of RedHat's papers is routine, while the investigation of SCO is serious stuff.

      Yes, this is your tax dollars at work, and they are working pretty well ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    16. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You'd be modded troll if you've were capable of trolling.

      What you posted should be modded -1, Dumb or -2, Dumber.

      Oh yeah - FUCK OFF!!!

    17. Re:What?! by hendersj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A short term gain at best, though - the "fan" base largely deserted RedHat, and the customers who decided that this was a good thing became the new "fans".

      It's really just a semantic discussion, though. Customers that aren't fans of a technology eventually look to other technology solutions.

      --
      Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
    18. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RedHat's current customers are basically CIOs and high-level managers. They're a bigger fan of the free golf games with the RH Salesman than the actual OS.

    19. Re:What?! by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Has anyone considered the possibility that Microsquash may be backing some of these lawyers?"

      If they were guilty of messin with the books, MS'd be the good guys for tattling. (Everywhere except Slashdot, that is...)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    20. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice comeback.

      Too bad you proved him right.

    21. Re:What?! by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      umm... did you read the article? they are being responcable and the changes being made are the way they are counting some types of revenue. all the are doing is counting is daily instead of weekly/monthly ect. The reason newsworthy and was reported to the shareholders is because it gives insight into thier acounting practices and it is thier responcability to justify any changes to the apropriate officials including sharholders.

      To put this in a more simple way, this is like you having a lemonade stand and counting your sales every week or month and then deciding to count them daily. the end result is the samer in the acounting proccess but now you have more of an insight into your daily operations.

      If microsoft or SCO was doing somethign like this, of course there would be some scepticizm on the motives but the end result would be the same. "it is nothing". I would also bet that the only reason the SEC is even interested in this is to cover thier own asses if somethign turns wrong later. Lets wait for somethign actually bad to come out of thier investigations before we start trolling. Well i guess troll is to strong of a word for your comment. Somethign like quick to show you didn't RTFA or understand it is more reasonable. Besides the lawsuite is by lawers claiming to represent shareholders causing the problems in question, not the SEC. It would be interesting to find out how many sharholders actually feel they have been wronged by a proceedural change the has the exact saem end result. It will be even more interesting to find out the reasoning behind any legitamit judge not throwing the case out based on it merrit.

      Unless somethign is being said or done here that isn't in the article or any of the coresponing article at redhats site, i don't see it gaining any traction. But then i'm not a lawer so i wouldn't know how to suite a companie for doing somethign by the books as the law states (ie.. reporting a change in the way they do thier acounting) especially when the change doesn't really change anythign as far as thier statments are concerned.

    22. Re:What?! by sloanster · · Score: 1

      How is it that a silly anonymous troll dumps a load of the same old flamebait crap which then gets modded as insightful?

    23. Re:What?! by nwbvt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      What exactly are you saying? That Red Hat can lie about earnings and hurt its investors because... they make a popular Linux distribution?

      So if Enron had invested in OSS, would you be defending Kenneth Lay and complaining about how he is being persecuted by the SEC?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    24. Re:What?! by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except for their non-enterprise customers such as myyself. Which while not a large percentage of their revenue, was a large percentage of their user base and did much in the way of QA for them.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    25. Re:What?! by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes some red hat 'fans' left but I monitor 3 of fedora's lists and I can tell you there is no shortage of suse/mandrake and a few Debian converts. After the initial "red hat shot my dog" emotional rants people settled down about the whole thing. Check out distrowatch Fedora has 1100 hits per day, second most popular distro behind Mandrake and It's only 9 months old; that's not exactly what I call 'abandon ship' everyone seems to be saying.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    26. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is this insightful? He didn't read the article for crying out loud. Can these mods shove their heads up their ass just a bit more please.

    27. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a cynical, asinine analysis. If a company discovers an error in its earnings statements but the restatements are such a minor thing, who cares if it's Microsoft, Red Hat, or SCO?

      It's not like they are recording sales booked to themselves, a la Enron.

    28. Re:What?! by hdparm · · Score: 1

      What he posted is bullshit. Does not apply to TFA. RH have not cooked their books.

    29. Re:What?! by GryMor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhm, did you even read the article? They didn't lie about their earnings. Their overall earnings remain constant. Whats changing is when they are counting their income on individual subscriptions. Instead of it being agregated monthly it's going to be amortised over the life of the contract on a daily basis so that it matches up with the losses incurred for the contract. The previouse methodology was in no way weird, non standerd nor sneaky. This way is just better.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    30. Re:What?! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only lie here is your implication that Red Hat is lying.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    31. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we'll take your word on that.

      (insert random LOL,ROTFLMAO,BWAHAHHAHA here)

      uh no. ok i just lied.

      >>customers thought for a moment and realize RHEL had better support and were therefor happier.

      you have ZERO to back that up. nothing. you are stating a "wish" or a "desire" of redhat. they hoped that your statement would be true, as it would benefit the long haul. but you or redhat don't have squat for proof that this really occured(that customers, in droves flocked to rhel).

      there might have been a modest amount, but nothing statistically signficant that would make a big dent in the long run.

      you fail it.

    32. Re:What?! by velo_mike · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Has anyone considered the possibility that Microsquash may be backing some of these lawyers?

      Have you considered that the lawyers in question stand to make between 35 and 50% off the top of the settlement? So many companies settle out of court these days, trying to avoid bad press, that it's worthwhile for these bastards to file every single lawsuit they can. A few will pay off huge, many will pay off some, and they'll take their fee right off the plunderings, er, judgement...

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    33. Re:What?! by gujo-odori · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, no, I wouldn't be "hooting and hollering." I like to see Microsoft get its ass kicked, sure. Who doesn't? But I like to see Microsoft get its ass kicked about the things for which it *deserves* it. Such as, in no particular order:

      - Security - or the lack thereof - in IE, Outlook, Exchange, and Outlook Express.

      - Clippy and his dolphin kin in Japan.

      - Fundamental design choices that make decent security apparently effectively impossible in Windows

      - Integrating the browser into the OS (partly covered by those design choices)

      - Monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. If I were an independent developer selling a Windows app, or a small company doing the same, I'd be really scared, especially if MS made a buyout offer and I didn't want to sell. Time and again, their next move has been to do everything possible to destroy potential competitors through underhanded means. Even when I was a Microsoft supporter and though Bill Gates was a genius (up to 1997, when I tried Linux for the first time), I found a lot of MS' business practices to be pretty distasteful.

      - Having to reboot if I change the netmask. This would be more understandable if I also had to reboot if I changed the IP address, but I don't. Just if I change the netmask.

      - The way every version of Windows tries to be more helpful and thereby becomes more of a hindrance. The one Windows box I still run uses Windows 2000 and I have no intention at all of "upgrading" to XP.

      - Failing to innovate IE to the point where it is now the least capable major browser in the market.

      - Spreading FUD and lies rather than even thinking about competing on merit.

      - Being unable to compete on merit.

      - Losing tons of server market share, and even a little desktop market share, to Linux b/c it can't compete on merit.

      *However* - I do NOT want to see even Microsoft being ripped off by a bunch of ambulance chasers filing a bogus class action lawsuit because they restated how their earnings are calculated - and that, if you RTFA, is all Red Hat has done: restate how their earnings are calculated. Their earnings have not changed.

      I want to see Microsoft beaten, crushed, and generally humiliated in the marketplace, sure. But I want to see it happen fair and square, not through the kind of tactics MS itself routinely uses on others.

      And yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe MS is behind this suit somewhere, just as they were behind the SCO suit, and it will come out eventually.

    34. Re:What?! by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      We need a mod of "Stupid". Do you know if MS has ever restated its earnings? If so, did such a story even make it to Slashdot? To the best of my knowledge, NO. MS has so much money that no one (even lawyers) would care about such a minor change in revenue. If MS had seriously lied about its revenue or profit, this might be a story. If they reported revenue one month too soon, NO ONE WOULD CARE. Get a life. (You probably flunked my calculus class - oops, that was an Honors class and you were not there. Too bad.)

      (Compiling a new kernel (2.6.7 rel. 10) and grumpy!)

    35. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RH have not cooked their books.

      Then they don't need to restate their earnings and the CFO can come back to do more good work.

      If their books were correct in the first place, they wouldn't be doing this. Their accounts are incorrect, wether it was deliberate or not, and you all need to stop the hypocrisy and swallow the truth.

    36. Re:What?! by RealUlli · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they were guilty of messin with the books, MS'd be the good guys for tattling. (Everywhere except Slashdot, that is...)

      From what I read, they switched the accounting of their subscriptions to a finer granularity. In the end, the result should be mostly the same, but they have to announce the change in accounting practices. Now they're going over their books with they new model, recalculating their revenues, and get slapped with a lawsuit.

      Both accounting practices are legal, so where is the messing? I think that lawsuit is bogus and just a means to drain resources from Red Hat...

      Regards, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    37. Re:What?! by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, my opinion is that Red Hat is coming back from this hardship nicely. They are doing an excellent job of determining where their holes in product lines are and filling them.

      I was one of the very vocal opponents of Red Hat dropping their standard distro in favor of Fedora, but I have largely changed my mind.

      Of course they decided to restructure their product line. Revenue from the retail products didn't make a dent in their operating costs, whereas enterprise sales have quadrupled in 4 years.

      But still, keep in mind that RedHat isn't really a software company just yet. With 90% of their >$1B capital invested in (and 3/4ths of their $14M profit coming from) bonds and other securities, they are still more of an underperforming mutual fund than a successful company.

      But it definitely seems likely that a couple of years from now their profit from RHEL is going to overtake the investment revenue.

      -a

    38. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Only one year old RH 9.0 is unsupported now, and the only support option out there is Fedora, which was fluctuating between being slightly unstable and totally out of its mind. Who would want to upgrade the working box to an experimental distro? Basically, the users of RH 9.0 got dumped.

      I had a few RH 9.0 boxes, but as patches became available less and less, I had to make a decision. RHEL was too expensive, and probably too old as well - I don't run Oracle. So I decided to switch in two ways. Some boxes - which would be better in RH setup - got White Box Linux, and other (mostly users' workstations) got SuSE. It all works now.

      Since I don't have many RH boxes left, I slowly forget redhat-config-xfree86 or whatever in favor of sax2. If you ask me which distribution to buy for your new workstation, I'd say get SuSE 9.1 DVD and don't look back.

    39. Re:What?! by name773 · · Score: 1

      ...Microsoft... which is nothing more than a... rip-off

      i couldn't agree more :)

    40. Re:What?! by hdparm · · Score: 1
      Even if you're right and they indeed played with their accounts, why do you think that I should 'swallow the truth'? I don't work for Red Hat and I don't own any RH shares. But, whatever.

      Due to their history, they certainly do not deserve flaming, at least not before any (deliberate or not) mistakes are proven.

    41. Re:What?! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      It's all very well to say it is "just a procedural change" and that "the change doesn't really change anything", but the fact of the matter is that the share price went down.

      As an investor, if you can show that RH had misled its shareholders, you would have grounds to sue them. The problem seems to be the combination of (a) the CFO leaving just before the announcement (b) the downgrading of previous years' profits by the accounting change and (c) the announcement that the SEC were involved somehow.

      It will probably not amount to anything, but there is enough going on to make a shareholder justifiably concerned.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to restate their earnings. They were recommended to do so, not forced, and there are quite a few possible reasons for restating earnings, all of which do not imply any kind of incorrectness of books.

    43. Re:What?! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Share prices fluctuate for slightest reasons and rumors, sometimes they go up, and sometimes they go down. If people playing inventor don't realize that they are essentially gambling, they're in wrong business.

      Of course shares going down should make holders concerned, but being concerned does not equal trying to screw other shareholders by hoping to make a bit of quick cash by some cooked up class action suit.

    44. Re:What?! by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1
      Yeah - what if RH fight the case and win - then the lawyers get zilch. It would be nice for them if some one was providing insurance against this though a backdoor cash infusion lack with Baystar for SCO gives them the incentive to take the risk

      It smells of MS.

    45. Re:What?! by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      Yeah - what if RH fight the case and win - then the lawyers get zilch.

      Exactly, that was the point I was trying to make. Lawyers know that enough companies will settle out of court to avoid the negative press. They also know that every once in a while, they'll pull one off and that makes up for all the cases that go nowhere. Check out what the lawyers walked away with in the tobacco suits, or since he's so recently in the news, check out some of the settlements Edwards won while in practice. Even if 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 win big, the expected payoff is non-zero. I'd bet it's way more likely that the action would be settled out of court for some fee, add that in to the expected payoff as well.

      It would be nice for them if some one was providing insurance against this though a backdoor cash infusion lack with Baystar for SCO gives them the incentive to take the risk I'd love to see companies actively fighting this, countersuing for slander, libel, or whatever they can come up with. Too many companies take the "easy" way out, settle out of court for a few hundred thousand and hope it goes away. All this does is encourage the sharks and the next time it will be a few million, then a few ten million, and so on.

      I believe that we, the consumers and investors, need to be the ones to push this, after all, we're the ones who will be left with higher prices or diminished returns in the end.

      It smells of MS

      Think twice about making those kind of statements.

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    46. Re:What?! by scruffy · · Score: 2, Informative
      I wish they made it easy at least to upgrade from RH9 to Fedora (Hear that RedHat?).

      For me at least, upgrading from RH9 to FC1 was pretty easy. Going from FC1 to FC2 was much harder (dual boot bug, no boot floppy, among other things).

    47. Re:What?! by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      Has anyone considered the possibility that Microsquash may be backing some of these lawyers?

      After replying to this earlier, I had another thought:

      There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

      The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

      "Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

      Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

      When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

      But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

      Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

      But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

      At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

      "There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

      An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

      "We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

      Aesop's fables

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    48. Re:What?! by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Losing tons of server market share, and even a little desktop market share, to Linux b/c it can't compete on merit.
      That's not really accurate, FYI. The market for servers keeps growing. The number of units shipped for Windows server products increases as well. The number of Linux servers continues to grow* (this is hard to say for 100% because there is no way to track this other than by publically available ip addresses, but it is ancedotally supported). However, the market share of both stays fairly steady. When gains in Linux market-share are realized it tends to come from other Unixes as well as Novell and proprietary legacy systems.

      What isn't happening though is that tons of Windows/Microsoft customers are switching to Linux platforms. It does happen, but not in statistically important quantities.

    49. Re:What?! by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      They merely improved the method by which they account for subscriptions by changing from a monthly accounting method to a more precise daily one. It does not effect the overall revenue. The only ones at fault for losing money are those investors that did not understand what was going on and had a knee-jerk reaction, abandoning their investment. RTFA

    50. Re:What?! by isotropique · · Score: 1

      Since RedHat still provides its source code for RHEL, there are some alternatives other than the cutting edge Fedora distribution: Tao Linux, CentOS-3 and White Box Entreprise Linux. These distributions are build from the source packages of RHEL 3 and are almost identical to RHEL except for some artwork and logos.

      For those who appreciate stability, reliability and long-term availability (4-5 years lifecycle), those distributions are made for you. Personnaly, I prefer Tao Linux because it has a rather large user base. The Tao logo looks great too!

    51. Re:What?! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      OTOH they now have Fedora as a cutting edge distribution/innovation testbed. People who want a Linux featuring the newest stuf might turn to Fedora and Fedora is there to test stuff that's later going to be used in RHEL.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    52. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What isn't happening though is that tons of Windows/Microsoft customers are switching to Linux platforms. It does happen, but not in statistically important quantities.

      The reverse also happens, (e.g. most of my systems used to run Linux/BSD; now they all run Windows), but also not in statistically significant quantities.

      In general, I don't follow market-share data much, but last time I looked into it at all, both Linux and Windows were gaining market share (Linux from a much smaller base than Windows, so the growth rate was much higher), mainly at the expense of UNIX and other 'big iron' systems.

    53. Re:What?! by coshx · · Score: 1

      Check out distrowatch Fedora has 1100 hits per day

      I bet that's only because they're the only distro shipping gnome 2.8!

    54. Re:What?! by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Did you even read my post or the post I was responding to? I didn't say they lied. They guy was complaining that the SEC is investigating Red Hat. Meaning he apparently thinks the SEC should treat Red Hat with a blind eye, which is basically equivalent to them getting a free pass to lie about their earnings. Hence why what I accused him of thinking that "That Red Hat can lie about earnings...", not Red Hat itself of lying. Minor difference between the two.

      I was attacking his apparent belief that Red Hat should be given special treatment by the SEC and that they should instead go after SCO with a vendetta, not Red Hat's business practices.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    55. Re:What?! by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, when did I imply that Red Hat was lying? Oh thats right, I didn't. I was talking about the ggp's feelings about how the SEC should act, not about Red Hat's business practices.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    56. Re:What?! by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Losing fan base doesn't hurt a company. Losing customer base does. Red Hat is definitely losing status as the favored distro among people with servers in their basement. We'll see if they can manage with the folks who have servers in a datacenter.

      When the company I work for started looking at a linux solution 2 years ago back then I was surprised at who they chose and who they didn't choose. Two years later after everything that has happened I am now surprised at the foresight of the decision. I can't name names but let's just say who you would have thought 2 years ago wasn't picked and who you wouldn't have 2 years ago but would now was picked. I wonder if they knew...

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    57. Re:What?! by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Well thats certainly interesting, but it really has nothing to do with what I had posted, did it?

      Regardless of whether or not Red Hat actually did lie and hurt investors in this case, the SEC has an obligation to investigate potential violations and cannot just turn a blind eye to Red Hat because they support OSS. Thus SQLz's complaint over the SEC investigating Red Hat is unjustified. RTFP.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    58. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Customers are often far more pragmatic then fans.

      How can I be more pragmatic than myself. You're not making sence.

    59. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article doesn't say the SEC is investigating.

    60. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'm sorry, when did I imply that Red Hat was lying?

      Here:

      Meaning he apparently thinks the SEC should treat Red Hat with a blind eye, which is basically equivalent to them getting a free pass to lie about their earnings.

      Look, it doesn't take an SEC investigation just to see the changes are trivial. There's a huge gap between a blind eye and an investigation. HUGE!

    61. Re:What?! by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Aside from the fact that the given quote came from after he posted his claim that I said Red Hat had lied, nothing in there states or even implies that Red Hat was guilty of lying, merely that the original poster was willing to let them get away with it.

      "Look, it doesn't take an SEC investigation just to see the changes are trivial."

      Why are you still talking about the changes Red Hat in their accounting practices? I thought I had made it clear that I was talking about the SEC investigation. The only relationship between the two is that the investigation prompted the changes.

      "There's a huge gap between a blind eye and an investigation. HUGE!"

      But having no investigations is, for all intensive purposes, tantamount to turning a blind eye.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    62. Re:What?! by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      OK, "tons" was probably an overstatement.

      At the enterprise level, it's true that not many operations have migrated from Windows to Linux (although I'm sure some have, and it's certain that more will), but at the level of the departmental LAN server and SOHO server, something for which no decent stats probably exist, Linux has gained a lot of market share. Since this is a market segment in which proprietary UNIX has market share of zero or so near to zero that the difference doesn't matter, that market share increase can come only at the expense of Microsoft and Novell. Mostly Microsoft, since the shops that are still running Novell these days mostly keep running Novell.

      Market share of certain server components such as Apache also needs to be considered. If you look at the market share graph here:

      http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_sur ve y.html

      You will notice two things:

      1) That Apache completely dominates the market;

      2) A rise in Apache market share at the right side of the graph, with a mirror-image drop in IIS market share.

      Whether point 2 also reflects an increase of Linux/*BSD market share or whether it represents a move from IIS to Apache on Windows, I don't know. It does, however, clearly show one of Microsoft's flagship products losing market share to an open source product. This could be caused by one or more of Linux taking market share from Windows, and people ditching IIS for Apache, probably over security concerns. Cost may also be a factor, but performance probably is not; IIS is pretty fast when it's working.

      I don't have time right now to google around for stats on Linux server market share Vs. Windows, but if you have time to find any that support your statement that relative market share between Linux and Windows is staying even, with Linux gains coming mostly at the expense of UNIX, I'd appreciate it if you could post them. I know that is the conventional wisdom, but I haven't seen stats to either prove or disprove it, so I'd be very interested in them. Especially in light of those Apache numbers, which may indicate a counter-argument to the conventional wisdom.

  3. Buy Low Sell High by bozojoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nows the time folks....buy up

    --
    lick the cancle button (at least thats what our Chinese QA says)
    1. Re:Buy Low Sell High by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they lose their lawsuit, dumbass.

    2. Re:Buy Low Sell High by mackman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Au contraire. Buy when it's going up and sell when it's going down. Right now it's still going down.

    3. Re:Buy Low Sell High by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Nows the time folks....buy up

      People like you were the cause of the dot-com bubble. Anyone with half a brain would look at Redhat's short, shaky future, and their ridiculously high P/E and stear plenty clear of them for a while. I wouldn't buy RHAT unless they were around 2-3. That would put their P/E within the realm of reality. Even then, that would be very risky, considering you can buy ORCL with a P/E around 22, and shitload of cash in the bank, with a much, much longer proven track record, with a much more stead management team.

    4. Re:Buy Low Sell High by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And both a market shall make

    5. Re:Buy Low Sell High by beakburke · · Score: 1

      Trying to time the bottom (or top) on a stock is a loosing game. If you are smart you pick realistic levels and buy/sell when it gets there. Thus you end up doing the opposite (buying on the slide and selling while the stock is still going up.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  4. SEC/US Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now IANAL, but doesn't this present inherent weakness in the US legal system? I know i Australia you can't sue for loss of share price over this sort of thing.

  5. No matter what... by TastyWords · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...it's going to hurt.

    The longer you go, the worse it's going to be. The best thing is to deal with it as soon as possible and get it behind you. If you wait, it makes it look like you're hiding something or biding your time.

  6. er high-ranking Red Hat executives are be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Former high-ranking Red Hat executives are behind a commercial package management tool said to facilitate system modifications better than dpkg or rpm. The 2003 startup Specifix says its "Conary" tool enables even heavily modified development systems to track upstream versions easily. The company was co-founded by a former Red Hat chief developer and a former VP of engineering services. More here.

  7. ... In Japan by boy_afraid · · Score: 0, Troll

    Red Hat announced that they would be re-stating their revenues for the last 3 years ... in Japan .

    1. Re:... In Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha

    2. Re:... In Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those unfamiliar with Japanese Business Law, there are some *extremely* stringent things which are required to be presented to the public.
      Now, if some of those things helped Japan stay in a deflationary economy for almost a decade, you can decide for yourself.

    3. Re:... In Japan by achurch · · Score: 0, Troll

      Red Hat announced that they would be re-stating their revenues for the last 3 years ... in Japanese .

    4. Re:... In Japan by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 0, Troll

      I haven't laughed so hard at a slashdot post in some time. Hats off.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  8. "ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I patently reject your characterization of me as an "ambulance chaser." I am one of the many investors who lost significant amounts of money in redhat stock, and this suit represents my best chance to bring to light the pervasive abuses that redhat has committed to make their financial picture look brighter than it is.

    If you want to report both sides, fine, but I resent the one-sidedness of your submission.

    Jason

    1. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The worst part about this bullshit is that they refused to run this story until they could dole it up with enough flamebait to point the finger at someone other than RedHat.

      Look into the company that owns this site, VA Linux, and the scumballs who took it public.

    2. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then damn news broke on 2004/07/13. It is now 2004/07/14. A one day delay is very good for /.

    3. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by djh101010 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I patently reject your characterization of me as an "ambulance chaser." I am one of the many investors who lost significant amounts of money in redhat stock,

      Waah. I bought in on the day it opened at about 50, got out of half of it at 300 (pre-split), and kept the rest. The paper losses are a result of the .com bubble bursting, not a trivial restatement of earnings. The only thing you can claim to have lost as a result of this is today's change in price.

      But, by all means, please do sell while it's undervalued, I'll be buying up your shares. Any lawsuit here is strictly driven by greed, either yours for not knowing when to get out (welcome to the stock market, it's gambling, deal with it), or (ahem) somene else's greed in trying to hurt the competition.

    4. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's perhaps because you see your "investment" as a gamble where you expected to make money fast and instead lost. Some (very few) people actually invest in a company they believe in, and sueing that company for more money runs counter to that goal, not to mention that it's greed, pure and simple.

      Resent all you want, you do not deserve the money or the respect, if not even for the fact that you help those lawyers suck money out of a good company, and keep most of it.

    5. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Hi, I lost money in Redhat stock as well, but I disagree entirely with you and I think you're an asshole, or a troll (maybe an asstroll?). Here's why (sorry for the rant).

      Class-action suits against a company for mickey-mouse bullshit is repulsive. If the company was actually doing something sleezily financially bad (eg enron) or dumping arsenic in the public water supply, then these class-action suits are deserved. But suits merely because of stock-price slippage are pathetic. I bet you wouldn't give 2 shits if the same tactics you decry redhat of have earned you money. But since you lost, you can't blame yourself, you're too smart to have made a bad decision. Yeah, blame redhat.

      It's asshats like yourself that have destroyed the society and culture that used to exist in the West. Now companies first priorities are their investors, not their customers nor their product. It's pathetic, and that's exactly the reason why all prime-time TV is the same and sucks, why restaurant chains and consumer food companies use shoddy unhealthy (but cheap) ingredients (eg high-fructose corn syrup and MSG), etc. Because the companies have to look after your ass because you invest in them.

      I think if you invest in a company, you should that company and have to bide by it's decisions. If those decisions make the stock go down (as long as it's ethical) than tough shit. Now the lawyer in you is probably defining 'ethical' to mean whatever takes care of investors the most. If you are thinking that, then you REALLY are a lifeless asshat that is destroying our society.

    6. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You should be thanking Red Hat instead for correcting their errors and admitting their mistake publicly.

      Which they only did because the SEC was coming after them, and they didn't want to go to jail. Oh thank you redhat.

    7. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take a look at the dates on the announcements... less than a day from the RedHat announcement of their changes to the announcement of the class-action lawsuit. Hardly enough time for a law firm to investigate and decide if the case really has any merit, I would think.

      Even if the case has merit, that doesn't change the fact that the filing of the class action suit happened incredibly quickly... so quicly, in fact, that there's a reasonable question as to whether it was filed because they firm thought they would have a strong case, or if it was filed because the firm though there was a possibility that they might have a strong case.

    8. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so which is he - an asshat or and asstroll?

      Besides, dumbass, corporations have destoyed the society and culture that used to exist in the west. Before you had huge corporate commericalism and marketing, you had city squares, shopping districts, and a sense of community. Now you have one big fucking strip mall from the BAMA to the Wild West.

    9. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Nixoloco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which they only did because the SEC was coming after them, and they didn't want to go to jail. Oh thank you redhat.

      Actually, their auditors recomended they restate their earnings, and they did.

    10. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No offence but RHAT has not been a good buy for a long time, if ever. Not because there business model is bad, but because they have been *overpriced*.

      If I bought Red HAt at any time over the past few years, based on my experience with investing and especially open-source (I make a living with open source myself) I would *expect* to lose money.

      So if you lost a lot of money, don't complain too much, because some of us expected RHAT would experience it's "correction" even without this minor earnings restatement.

      Yeah Red Hat should be held accountable, but it's just like the employees who put 100% of their holdings in Enron company stock. That's a dumb move even *without* the fraud.

    11. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, where was your name mentioned in the article? Seems you're taking something personal that was in no way directed at you. Unless you're a lawyer, you can't be an ambulance chaser.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    12. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ambulance chasers will make all the money. You'll be lucky to buy a burger with what you get.

    13. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the SEC rules are a bad thing? Or are you saying that there should be no motivation for people to do the right thing?

      You would prefer instead that a company, such as RedHat, be allowed, if not encouraged, to hide such errors?

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    14. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ipfwadm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you were stupid enough to sell for less than what you purchased the stock for, that's your own problem.

      This is insightful? Give me a friggin break moderators. Have you ever invested in the stock market before? If you buy the stock and the price starts to go down, you have a choice -- if you think it's going to go down more, you can limit your losses and sell. If you think it's going to go back up, you ride out the bad times. Sometimes you make the right choice. Sometimes you make the wrong choice. Calling someone stupid for selling a stock for less than what they bought it for is ridiculous. What's stupid is holding onto that stock, when all indications are that it will never rise again, just because you don't want to sell at a loss. And from looking at RedHat's stock profile since its IPO, it looks a bit unlikely that RedHat will ever again achieve the highs it once hit.

    15. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
      Hey idiot! Even if you "win", you will likely get a worthless coupon for something. I have lots of stocks, in fact I believe I'm part of at least 20 class action suits even though I feel I haven't been wronged at all. Eventually they are settled, the lawyers get big bucks and those of us who were "damaged" get a coupon or something else that we can't possibly use or wouldn't want to do or use. Of the past 10 suits in the last 5 years that have been "settled on my behalf", I didn't get one single cent from it. I do get a bunch of crap printed on very thin paper (usually like tissue paper) that wastes a lot of my time reading.

      Ambulance chaser is a nice reference. I'd call them blood sucking, company killing, socialist bastards or worse. They deserve it. By the way, VP candidate Edwards is one of those blood sucking trial lawyer types that suck the blood out of our country. Very cocky sucker! He hasn't even done one term in the senate and he runs for President. Please wait while his mother changes his diapers. Lots of foul odors coming from him. Or maybe that stench is from Kerry.

    16. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by realdpk · · Score: 1

      It's stupid to sell it for less than you purchased it for, and then blame anyone but yourself for doing so. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell stock (or for that matter, to buy it in the first place). Suing over stock losses (which don't become losses until you sell) is even more stupid.

    17. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should that company and have to bide by it's decisions.

      "you should support that company and have to abide by its decisions.".

    18. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Don't be such a fucking wimp cunt. Hold onto your stock; it'll come back, you stupid moronic asshole loser dipshit fart-sniffing eye-of-needle fucker.

    19. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

      Right.

      So after looking at RedHat's stock profile you think that it's RedHat's fault that anyone lost money in their stock during the period in question?

      "...you can limit your losses and sell."

      Yup. Or not. That's your choice. But to say that RedHat forced anyone to sell stock during that period is......

      Well, it seems pretty stupid to me. I'll let you choose your own word though.

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    20. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ipfwadm · · Score: 1

      It's stupid to sell it for less than you purchased it for, and then blame anyone but yourself for doing so. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell stock (or for that matter, to buy it in the first place). Suing over stock losses (which don't become losses until you sell) is even more stupid.

      I never said that attempting to blame someone else for stock losses wasn't stupid. In fact, I would agree with you that blaming someone else is stupid. I think there's a very sore lack of people in the U.S. (and in other parts of the world, from what I understand, though I can only speak of that with which I am familiar) who will accept responsibility for their actions.

    21. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My advice: grow up.

      Sometimes you lose money on a stock. Sometimes you make money on a stock. That's true for everyone.

      But everyone doesn't go crying to a lawyer every time they have a problem. Only a certain kind of person does that -- not the good kind.

      I suggest if you really want your money back, you should just go rob a liquor store. As you point the gun at him, you could explain to the clerk that you're doing it because you're a victim of a small disagreement in corporate accounting methods.

      Or you could earn it, like -- well, like a grown-up.

    22. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I would prefer that you shut up, because you're a moron.

    23. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ipfwadm · · Score: 1

      So after looking at RedHat's stock profile you think that it's RedHat's fault that anyone lost money in their stock during the period in question?

      Please point to where in my post I said anything even closely resembling this.

      Yup. Or not. That's your choice. But to say that RedHat forced anyone to sell stock during that period is......

      Nope, I still didn't say that...

      RedHat obviously didn't force anyone to sell. But from looking at the chart, the stock stayed in the basement without moving for about two and a half years. Some would say that not making a profit off a stock for two and a half years, with minimal expectations for growth, would be a pretty bad investment. A lot like stuffing money under your mattress. And I know my financial advisor has never suggested that as a good investment strategy.

      And when faced with that situation, I think a lot of people would (wisely) accept the loss and sell, and pursue more profitable ventures. Besides, there's always the real risk that the company goes belly-up and then you lose all your money. But, from looking at the .sig of your original post, you probably think that any suggestion of RH going bankrupt is sheer blasphemy.

    24. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of the dot-com bubble bursting?

      Anyone who had money in Red hat to begin with was a moron. It's a bad stock, period.

      Playing the stock market: BAD
      Investing in companies with profit potential: GOOD

    25. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ipfwadm · · Score: 1

      Anyone who had money in Red hat to begin with was a moron. It's a bad stock, period.

      I generally will not disagree with you there. However, the post I originally responded did not say that it was stupid to invest in RedHat. If it had, I would not have argued the point. It said that if you sell a stock for a lower price than you buy it for, you are stupid. This, on the other hand, is a ridiculous statement.

      Investing in companies with profit potential: GOOD [emphasis mine]

      And that's why the original poster's statement is ridiculous. Profit is never guaranteed, it's only a potential. As such, even the best-looking investments can result in a loss.

    26. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now companies first priorities are their investors, not their customers nor their product.

      Did you grow up in East Germany or something? Corporations have always been only about the capitalists.

      But I guess they don't tell shitheads like you that in the TV commercials, so you cry when you learn the hard way.

    27. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When you sue a company, you are effectively sueing the people who own that company. While the stockholders are not directly liable, any money you get comes directly from their dividend. So, if you still own stock, you are filing a lawsuit against yourself. If you sold your stock, you are sueing the poor fools you sold the stock to for acts committed by the company when you owned it.

      I'm all for holding companies accountable for their actions, but I fail to see how lawsuits like this do anything other than benefit prior stockholders at the expense of the current ones.

    28. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the pot is calling the kettle black.

    29. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I hate to be a metoo type poster but if i had any mod point i would place them all over your post. Some how you managed to take everything i was thinking about stuff like this and put it in a few paragraphs that not only says it corectly but says it in a way not to confuse the issue.

      Good job pointing out the way it is and the problems with it.

    30. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "retard" springs to mind.

      There are some cases class-action lawsuits are appropriate - see Enron. There are cases where class-action lawsuits are not - RedHat.

      If you were dumb enough to buy high and sell low, you deserved to lose every penny you lost. It's not RedHat's alleged mismanagement you should blame, it's your sorry self for not being an informed investor.

    31. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see: You sue a company for a fall in its stock price. The value of the shares reflect the value of the company. So let's assume you win and Red Hat has to pay $1 in compensation for every share to every share holder. This in turn reduces the assets of Red Hat by $1 per share and thus the value of each share by $1. So you get $1 in cash for each share that is consequently worth $1 less afterwards. Nothing gained, something lost through the bad publicity + legal costs.

      Unless of course you sold your shares before you sue. But that's then basically asking the (probably innocent) guy who bought the shares from you (not Red Hat) to pay for your loss as any $ you gain reduces the value of now his shares. Doesn't sound fair, does it?

    32. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, of course corporations are about the capitalists. Capitalism isn't necessarily bad.

      However, my problem is the current implementation. A privately-held company can do whatever it wants. It can make decisions that might sacrifice some profits in order to maintain company image or product quality, etc. If a publically-traded company did this, and the investors could prove there was no gain to the company per se, they can legally and ethically (in the sense of business ethics) launch a lawsuit.

      So the business screws over customers to appease shareholders. If they tried to appease customers then our end products may be much better, and we might have better music on the radio, better shows on tv, better and healthier food, higher-quality everyday items, yada yada yada.

    33. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck.

      a) RTFA - it hardly realyl changed anything

      b) Your a cumwad ambulance chaser. Fuck off.

    34. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      thanks, and i was too chicken-shit to post non-anonymous. oh well.

      i just re-read my rant later, and i think i called him/her an asshat too many times, instead of clearly defining my problem w/ the system. luckily some moderators agree.

      the big thing, though, is when my friend from undergraduate years (who was studying at Wharton, a big business school at U.Penn) claimed that it is unethical for a business to help out an employee if the business will not gain anything in return. Now if Joe Schmoe's wife is sick and the business gives him money for her operation, well then one can claim Joe will be a better worker and hence the business will gain by helping Joe out. Or donating to charity, which can be used for public awareness. But if there is absolutely no gain to come from helping an employee out, then the business is actually committing unethical behavior (according to business law).

      That's the real annoying part. Stockholders can sue a company for not making enough profits as they think it could have. WTF is that really all about?

      That's why people claim "America has no culture.". I disagree entirely with that statement, of course, because I have travelled all around the USA, and seen music/lifestyle/culinary/etc cultures in many different areas, and there is TONS of it here in America. But when you talk about the 'business culture' of mcdonalds, microsoft, pepsi, etc, it's companies everywhere, consolidation everywhere, leaving less and less of the mom and pop shops around, and less of 'good ol' Americana'.

      Anyway, hopefully this rant is a little-less hotheaded.

    35. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ummm, your last paragraph is basically what I was claiming in my original post, so I don't see why you are calling me a dumbass, we are pretty much in agreement.

      Anyway, yeah, walmarts and mcdonalds and starbucks are replacing general stores, country kitchens, and local cafes. It's a real shame, because there really is ALOT of culture in the USA, but many people aren't aware of it because there's a mask of corporatization over it all.

      On a different note, it's ironic that Republicans are the ones that most support big-business, and the walmartization of the USA. Yet they also garner the most support from small-town USA and the folks that want to keep their "country roots". Hopefully common sense will get knocked into these people's heads that their country roots are getting destroyed as the USA becomes McUSA, yada yada yada.

    36. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simoniker is not talking about you. He's talking about the jews that profit from the misfortune of others, a.k.a. lawyers or ambulance chasers.

    37. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, you don't lose until you sell. I made money on RHat. I lost on Kodak though.
      Losing on KKK right now, but you won't see me joining the class-action on them. Like was mentioned, if they really did something criminal, then the SEC should meter out the punishment. But most of these class-action lawsuits are greedy money grubbing. The lawyers get rich, the people in the lawsuit get maybe a coupon, or a few bucks. You will never make back the money you lost for sure form it.

      Ambulance chaser!

    38. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call clueless bullsh*t. Within the past few years, I bought a bunch of RH at $5. So it fell from $20 to $15. I'm still quite happy, and holding on to it. At this price, I'll probably buy more before the market catches on.

      So contrary to your clueless posting, RedHat has been a superb buy.

      I also doubt you do Open Source for a living. My bet is you're a troll from Redmond.

    39. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by beakburke · · Score: 1
      What exactly were the "pervasive abuses" that Red Hat committed? Cause I really don't see any in this story. Of course if you are ignorant of basic finance then it might be easy to turn a routine procedural change in how revenue is booked into "defrauding the investors".

      You know, im not slamming you for being ignorant, thats ok. But then you shouldn't spout your opinion like someone that actually knows what they are talking about. It just makes you look foolish.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    40. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by infolib · · Score: 1

      I think if you invest in a company, you should that company [??? sic] and have to bide by it's decisions. If those decisions make the stock go down (as long as it's ethical) than tough shit.

      No. As a shareholder you own part of the company. The directors are on your payroll and should obey you, not the other way round. (After all, it's your money on the line). The problem alledged by the suit is that the CEOs released insufficient information. How are you as a shareholder going to control the company, if you can't know what's going on?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    41. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Yup, as a proud holder of Acclaim (AKLM) stock when it fell from $25 to $12 I thought I was in for a bargain. Of course now it has fallen to 25 cents :-(

    42. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Could you edify us with what you think the "pervasive abuses" are?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    43. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't be such a fucking wimp bush. Hold onto your stock; it'll come back, you stupid moronic asshole loser dipshit fart-sniffing eye-of-needle fucker.

      Mod -1, Foul Language. The word "bush" should never be used in polite society.

    44. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by ajs · · Score: 1

      "I patently reject your characterization of me as an "ambulance chaser.""

      I'm sorry, I don't characterize you that way at all. However (and I'm dissapointed at Slashdot's editors for retroactively changing my submission without noting that it was no longer a direct quote (that's just bad journalism)), I was not refering to you. I'm refering to the bottom-feeding lawyers that started this suit. They are not your friends; they are not doing this because they knew anything about the situation before it became a press release; and they are most certainly not going to pause for a beat if it looks like the chance of winning this one is slim.

      Take a look at the history of the cases that the firms involved had started. You'll find that most of them end fast. It's just a shotgun approach. I don't know who your particular lawyers are, but the general approach is this: you read the filings of all of the publically traded companies. Any time a company files a negative restatement you watch the stock price that day and/or the next day. If it results in a substantial drop in price, you take a standard form-suit and write in the names and cursory facts.

      The goal of such a suit is to get into discovery and find that there's some kernel of wrong-doing. You don't KNOW that there is, but when you start with all of the companies that had to re-state earnings your chances are fair that one in ten or so will yield something juicy enough to merit settlement, and that's going to net enough money to pay for your lawyers (of course, it's rarely enough to benefit the people like you who are actually concerned about the case).

      "If you want to report both sides, fine, but I resent the one-sidedness of your submission."

      I think you're looking at this from a "I lost money because RHAT's price went down," perspective, so I'm not so interested in "sides" as the objective facts. Fact: Red Hat re-stated revenues. Fact: Red Hat did so after their new auditors told them to. Fact: Red Hat's old auditors signed off on the books using the old method of reporting for three years. Fact: this kind of change as a result of different auditors is rare, but certainly not unheard of. Fact: the change did not result in different revenues for RHAT, only the months in which they were reported. Fact: As a result, Red Hat is down to twice the price that they were at last year.... that's right, they're up 100% over last year, after their price dropped. Fact: At their 52-week high, RHAT's price was around 300x their earnings, a valuation that was only appropriate in the context of speculation, FAR outside of RHAT's projections and guidance. Fact: Analysts were cautioning investors just before the pre-earnings drop that Red Hat was "priced for perfection", and that any mis-step in their implementation would result in failure to achive the lofty goals that were calculated into their price by the market.

      It seems to me that, unless the discovery yields some as-yet-uncovered facts that hurt RHAT, your case simply doesn't stand a chance, and will end up costing you time while being nothing more than an "acceptable" loss to the ambulance chasers.

    45. Re:"ambulance chaser" indeed by cyways · · Score: 1
      less than a day from the RedHat announcement of their changes to the announcement of the class-action lawsuit. Hardly enough time for a law firm to investigate and decide if the case really has any merit, I would think.

      One of the first web sites I ever designed was for a law firm that specializes in exactly this type of class-action lawsuit. The rush to court reflects the dynamics of what has become (in the US) a very competitive legal business.

      The name of the game in class action suits is to be named the "lead" attorneys by the court in which the suit is heard. Courts decide who gets to be the lead based on the number of plaintiff shares each law firm can bring to the table. Typically the one or two firms representing the largest number of plaintiff shares are designated, and they receive the lion's share of the fees (if any). This has created an enormously competitive environment among trial attorneys as each firm tries to recruit as many plaintiffs as possible. Being first to file the suit can help this recruitment effort, since later filers can appear to potential plaintiffs as less competent or engaging in a "me-too" practice. In such an environment it's become commonplace to announce a suit within days or even hours of a company's earnings restatement.

      Finally, before we continue down the "ambulance chaser" road, it's important to remember that a lot of companies engage in shady financial practices and deserve to be sued. My then-client was suing a number of firms where corporate officers dumped their stock just before announcing a major earnings restatement. And, of course, today's the day Martha Stewart will be sentenced....

  9. I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by irokitt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But it appears that the crux of this case is that Red Hat must prove that the mis-stated earnings were the result of an honest mistake, not intentional fudging (*cough* Enron */cough*).

    That makes it sound simple, but Red Hat will still have to fork out enormous legal fees to win this case, or settle with the firm (hereafter referred to as "ambulance chasers" or "greedy bastards") and fork over cash that way.

    Red Hat is probably in a better position to handle this than most Linux companies (with the obvious exception of IBM), but it has already hurt their stock price, so we'll just have to hold tight and see.

    --
    If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    1. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by oostevo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "But it appears that the crux of this case is that Red Hat must prove that the mis-stated earnings were the result of an honest mistake, not intentional fudging (*cough* Enron */cough*)." But that's not it ... Because Redhat apparently had false information for investors for three years, and they're just now releasing that information, the current investors who saw their (unrealistically valued) stock price plummett got screwed, and they've got a legitimate grievance. (As far as I can tell. Though it should go without saying ... IANAL)

      --
      In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
      Oh wait...
    2. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by cubic6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To save everyone in this thread the trouble of actually reading the article...

      Red Hat "determined it would be appropriate to stop recognizing revenue for subscription agreements on a monthly basis - a method it has consistently applied for the last five years Ð and start recognizing revenue on a daily basis over the particular contract term."

      In other words, they're counting the subscription payments per day rather than per month. Hardly Enron-esque material. The way I understand it, it means that some of the revenue will be reported on different days. The amount is the same, and there's no extra money disappearing that could've tricked investors into buying Red Hat stock.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    3. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      That makes it sound simple, but Red Hat will still have to fork out enormous legal fees to win this case, or settle with the firm (hereafter referred to as "ambulance chasers" or "greedy bastards") and fork over cash that way.

      Red Hat will come out unscathed if they go with the precedent set by the current OS market leader in recent class action suits. They should arrange a settlement where they give coupons for free copies of Linux to the shareholders and random unrelated school districts.

    4. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      But it appears that the crux of this case is that Red Hat must prove that the mis-stated earnings were the result of an honest mistake, not intentional fudging

      But that's not the only exit. From the lawyer's press release:

      Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements to the market and concealed material adverse facts concerning the Company's financial performance.

      This should be a slam dunk, since the changes (monthly vs. daily pro ration) are clearly not a case of "materially false and misleading statements," but rather a minor change with negligable net effect. Should be easy to sink on undisputed facts.

      -- MarkusQ

    5. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by k98sven · · Score: 1

      But it appears that the crux of this case is that Red Hat must prove that the mis-stated earnings were the result of an honest mistake, not intentional fudging

      Since when is guilt generally presumed?

      Obviously Red Hat has spread some information which turned out to be false. Obviously they now know this information was false.
      But the plaintiffs must still prove that Red Hat knew this was false when they released the information.

      Enron is not different in that respect either. The difference is that in the Enron case, the discrepancies were so huge that it is not reasonable to assume they didn't know.

      There is no reasonable doubt there. Not in my mind anyway.

    6. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by FreeMars · · Score: 1

      They should arrange a settlement where they give coupons for free copies of Linux to the shareholders and random unrelated school districts.

      Unfortunately, the standard form for settling class-action lawsuits goes like this:

      • Company spends a lot on its own lawyers
      • Company gets to give a large payment to the ambulance chasers
      • 'Class' members get something like a $5.00 off certificate good for the purchase of a new laptop. Be still my heart.

      The trouble is class-action lawsuits are like spam: they're often 'opt out'. Like all good American consumers, I've gotten a couple letters explaining how I'm a member of some 'class' -- if I want to opt out of the lawsuit I need to find an envelope (not provided) and stamp (not provided) and send in a letter asking to be excluded.

      As the owner of a whopping 100 shares of Red Hat stock I'll probably get another such letter. Is responding to it any more effective than responding to a spammer 'remove' address? All lawsuits should be 'opt-in'.

      --
      Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
    7. Re:I'm most definitely not a lawyer... by bluesbrosfan · · Score: 1
      As the owner of a whopping 100 shares of Red Hat stock I'll probably get another such letter. Is responding to it any more effective than responding to a spammer 'remove' address? All lawsuits should be 'opt-in'.

      Yes, it is more effective, though probably pointless in this case. The opt-out letters are designed to protect people with legitimate greivances with the company who may not want accept whatever settlement the defendant company and the attorneys negotiate. If you send the required letter, you have sucessfully protected your right to sue the company yourself later, and waived your right to any settlement of the class action. It really does work.

      But it's pointless for small shareholders if you have no intention whatsoever of suing the company yourself later, unless you don't want to participate in the settlement for other reasons.

      Most lawsuits are opt-in, but class actions are the exception for a really good reason - to enable people and companies to get punished for hurting a whole lot of people in a small way without forcing someone to track down and hassle the millions of people with $1 in damages each.

      ...at least in theory. The system obviously has its disadvantages. I heard war stories in law school about firms that specialize in these types of shareholder derivative suits - it is indeed all about the money. At least the ambulance chasers actually seek compensation for an injury that someone noticed and cared about.

  10. Red Hat is still priced for perfection by fname · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rad Hat has annual revenue of less than $150 million. And a market cap just south of $3 Billion. A price/sales of 20. I'm sure Red Hat is a good business, and will continue to grow, but they have to grow a lot to justify that price. And since much of their revenue is for service, their costs will grow as their sales grow (in contrast to Microsoft's Windows monopoly, which requires very few marginal expenses for each sale). Nice company, can't imagine their stock will be much higher in 5 years.

    1. Re:Red Hat is still priced for perfection by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful


      And since much of their revenue is for service, their costs will grow as their sales grow (in contrast to Microsoft's Windows monopoly, which requires very few marginal expenses for each sale).


      Good point. However, remember that "service" in this case is more than a helpdesk ticket. Service is also software. Software-as-service takes on two forms.

      The first software service is packaging. All of Redhat's software is Open Source. One can download, build, and configure the exact same system that is bundled as any of the official RedHat platforms. However, Redhat does this for their customers with official RPMs.

      Of course, this service isn't unique. Even if you don't want to package your own RPMs, there are others who will - collected in to public repositories. So why is Redhat's service unique?

      Redhat offers a slow-moving target for enterprise developers. If you're dependant on enterprise applications (say, Oracle) you're going to want to run on a platform Oracle has agreed to support. Redhat does the testing and negotionation with enterprise developers to create that platform. Redhat's RPMs are a part of this.

      Some techies will find this all a bit dubious. But then, the concept of "someone to support it / blame" is seen as dubious - and it's often cited as a real issue with Business IT.

    2. Re:Red Hat is still priced for perfection by winse · · Score: 1

      What's really funny is that i am short on rhat because of some speculation that the p/e was waaaay to high. I thought i'd make like 10-20% quick, but then all this other stuff started happening. It kind of makes me happy, or at least serendipitous.

      --
      this sig is deprecated
  11. Ambulance chasers? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Could a certain Redmond-based company behind the SCO lawsuits be behind this as well, just to screw with Linux any way they can?

    1. Re:Ambulance chasers? by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Ya think? Microsoft, doing devious things against a Linux provider? Come on, how likely is that?

    2. Re:Ambulance chasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it be that certain free-OS-based companies just cannot come up with effective business models, and try to find their way out by bankruptcy (Mandrake) and screwing investors (Redhat)?

    3. Re:Ambulance chasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention Sun Microsystems as someone else who could be behind this. Sun has much to lose from Red Hat's success.

    4. Re:Ambulance chasers? by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt it. There are law offices that will file class action lawsuits at any mention of restating or missing your expected profit targets.

      Search Yahoo Finance news for "Class Action Lawsuit" and you will see that there are lots of them being filed and not only on tech companies.

    5. Re:Ambulance chasers? by d_jedi · · Score: 0

      Certainly!! I'm sure they made Redhat's accountants cook their books!! They are a devious bunch..

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    6. Re:Ambulance chasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what i was looking for. how one trek mind users of /. are going to blame microsoft for this one

  12. Restate UP by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish , just once.. a company I owned stock in would restate their books in a positive manner... ie: oops, we forgot to count that extra 200 million worth of revenue.

    That'd be a pleasant change.

    1. Re:Restate UP by bofkentucky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually thats what a lot of the dot commers were doing (and got in trouble with the SEC for it). Microsoft held back signifigant portions of their Windows 2000/Office 2000 era earnings in a "cookie jar" that was supposed to level out revenue after the dot com bubble burst. Not every .com was part of a pump-and-dump scam, some had intentions of riding out the crash.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    2. Re:Restate UP by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Umm well, what RHAT is doing is not really negative. They are basically saying we're going to count earnings towards the end rather than the beginning of a contract. As such, it may make their profits smaller in one year but this will inflate their profits for the next year, since the money taken out of the prior year will end up in the next year.

      I actually took this as a buying opportunity and bought RHAT after it's 20% drop yesterday. Since this accounting change doesn't seem like it should alter the overall income of the company in a span of more than a year (or however long their contracts are, I am not sure) I thought that the decrease in price is more emotional than real.

    3. Re:Restate UP by john_sheu · · Score: 0

      I bet they'd STILL get sued...

    4. Re:Restate UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel announced that their earnings this quarter would be approximately 2x what they planned on due to high sales of flash memory.

    5. Re:Restate UP by term8or · · Score: 1

      "Since this accounting change doesn't seem like it should alter the overall income of the company in a span of more than a year..."

      Yeah, except the bloodsucking lawyers are suing Red Hat, so it'll have a huge legal bill to pay (i.e. the shareholders will pay).

      --



      "As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
    6. Re:Restate UP by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      I don't have too much faith in this lawsuit. There are actually 2 class action suits against RHAT, both filed yesterday. One of them defines the class as anyone who bought RHAT between sometime in June and July 13th. inclusive. The lawsuit was filed on July 14th, basically the next day after the alleged range of the crime. How much faith do you have in a suit like that?

      I think the lawfirm(s) wanted to be the first to file so that they can claim to be represending the CLASS in case some real improprieties surface. I think RHAT is releasing their restatement on Monday. If that statement is nice and clean and happy, the lawsuit will wither away. If some real issues surface, then the lawyers will rape the company.

      By which point I'll be screwed anyway because the stock will drop low just on the restatement alone.

    7. Re:Restate UP by Prothonotar · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that it will be difficult to show damages for members of the class going back to 2001, since even after the 20% stock drop, stock was still priced higher than in 2001 (or most of 2003 for that matter).

      --
      "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
  13. Lead Plaintiff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you bought Red Hat securities between June 19, 2001 and July 13, 2004, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff.

    Gee, I've never done anything that high profile in my life. Does a $3000 investment in Fidelity Magellan count? I'm sure they must've picked up some Red Hat somewhere along the way.

  14. Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by prostoalex · · Score: 5, Informative

    From reading the submission blurb it seems that those impeccable white knights on horse just made a mathematical error (must've been using an older kernel) and the resulting slump is pure emotion by the investors.

    Well, it's not. RedHat's Q4 2003 earnings are now $0.02 instead of $0.03 which is either a 33% or 50% reduction, depending on which way you count, and the stock fall represents just portion of that.

    Also, even after fall, Red Hat trades at 133 P/E, which is way overvalued even for this sector (MSFT, for example, is at 40.59).

    People don't like to be lied by management when they invest their money into the company, and people will launch lawsuits when they deem something inappropriate had been done.

    1. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also, even after fall, Red Hat trades at 133 P/E, which is way overvalued even for this sector (MSFT, for example, is at 40.59).

      RedHat is an open-source oriented technology company. Microsoft is a cash heavy mutual fund with broad investment across the technology industry. Redhat's multiple reflects investors optimism in RedHat's volatility and future business potential. Microsoft's lower multiple reflects its more stable and mature business model.

      Put in other terms, Microsoft is as much like Redhat as Boeing is like Scaled Composites.

    2. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, there're like 500 companies on that list trading at P/Es below Red Hat. Some are service-based, some might even rely on Linux.

      RHAT is outrageously expensive, and it certainly seems like someone among the C-level executives tried to pull an Enron by writing down cash that didnt get to the bank yet.

      Although they are certainly nice about admitting it themselves, investors are kinda funny people in the way that they hate losing money. And if one bought a share of Red Hat in Jan 2000 for $190-200 and the pretty paper is $15.05 today, one certainly has little reason to celebrate. And if a piece of news about shenanigans in the upper management comes across, there will be a bunch of pissed-off investors ready to sue.

    3. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, it's not. RedHat's Q4 2003 earnings are now $0.02 instead of $0.03 which is either a 33% or 50% reduction, depending on which way you count, and the stock fall represents just portion of that.

      No, the Q4 2004 earning (not 2003 earnings!) dropped from $0.0264 to possibly as low as $0.0220, a 17% reduction max. The minimum reduction would be half that. Further, it's not clear to me how relevant their earnings per share are since they are still slightly positive. For the fiscal year of 2004 (including this errant quarter), we're talking an earnings drop of no more than 5%.

      The big question is whether this is the only problem with their books. I suspect that's really why their share price dropped so dramatically.

    4. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a 33% reduction. Doesn't matter which way you count. Further, nobody is investing in RHAT because of their huge quarterly earnings. They invest in it because of its potential future growth. That's why their p/e ratio is so high.

    5. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by the_womble · · Score: 1
      which is either a 33% or 50% reduction

      Other posters have already pointed out that you do not seem to understand rounding errors.

      Also, even after fall, Red Hat trades at 133 P/E

      But the P/E is only 36x the forecast earnings for next financial year. which is way overvalued even for this sector

      (MSFT, for example, is at 40.59).

      MS has not managed to increase sales by 61% from Q1 last year to Q1 this year. Neither is its EPS forecast to increase 478% from 2004 to 2006. Did you try comparing their PEG ratios? Or doing a DCF of any kind?

      People don't like to be lied

      Changing accouting policies is not lying as long as what the policies were was correctly stated at the time. Policy changes happen all the time. The share price drop either reflects fear of accounting changes (post Enron), with an outside possibility that the sellers know of more bad news to come.

      I used to be an analyst and this sort of announcement would not in itself have any effect on my view on a company. I do not know the company (I used to cover UK software so I know something about the sector) so I can not form a proper view on it. What I can say is that if I had one, this announcement would not change it.

    6. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      Not sure if they lied to the stockholders since if you read their financial reports, how they recognized revenues from contracts should have been stated in the footnotes. Of course, since most of us don't do that, this would come as a surprise but that's mainly our fault.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    7. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by bstone · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not. RedHat's Q4 2003 earnings are now $0.02 instead of $0.03 which is either a 33% or 50% reduction, depending on which way you count, and the stock fall represents just portion of that.

      Well, actually, they were down 10.6% for last quarter, 2.2% for the year (the 0.03 to 0.02/share is a rounding anomaly -- 0.0260 to 0.0227/share).

      In any case, the share price is NOT based on the earnings in the current quarter anywhere NEAR as much as it is based on expected future earnings (as evidenced by the astronomical 133 PE ratio). The accounting change in question simply (and properly IMHO) accounts for income later rather than earlier, and actually makes future earnings higher. Add that to the fact that there is absolutely zero net change in total earnings, and it seems that there is a huge short term overreaction in stock price.

      The only possible change in earnings due to this restatement is due to the increased costs that will be incurred defending lawsuits like this. I can't possibly see how a lawsuit like this one is in the best interests of the shareholders. Without the lawsuit or the threat of lawsuits, I would think the stock would rebound quickly, and with the accounting change and the honesty of management to admit it, I can only see it as a positive influence on the stock price.

    8. Re:Well, posting the contract revenues WAS a scam by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      But people DIDN'T launch the lawsuit, The LLP that issued the press release is LOOKING FOR A LEAD PLAINTIFF.

      In other words, NO PERSON has complained about it at all, these joiks figure, "Get out a press release, MAYBE we can FIND a lead..."

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  15. Gotta Love the Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it just grand how thousands of very intelligent geeks spent countless hours creating and improving Linux and Red Hat, and now a bunch of doughy, pasty-faced vultures at "Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP" will rake in an assload of cash from this?

    God, I really hate the American legal system.

    1. Re:Gotta Love the Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. It seems like the lawyers are the only people making any money from the open source business model.

    2. Re:Gotta Love the Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am offended by your remark because of its anti-semitic implications.

    3. Re:Gotta Love the Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sort of thing has been Situation Normal in the technology industry for years. RedHat, and the capitalists that own them, know this.

    4. Re:Gotta Love the Lawyers by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1


      This lawsuit has nothing to do with Linux. RedHat could making pickled cabbage and this lawsuit still could have happened.

      Don't worry you thousand doughy, pasty-faced geeks, the very intelligent vultures don't give a crap what you do.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    5. Re:Gotta Love the Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am offended by your remark because of its anti-semitic implications.

      Ummmmm, and why is that, exactly?

      The OP quoted the name of the law firm, which happened to be comprised of mostly Jewish-sounding names. Did you RTFA? If not, then STFU with your "anti-semitic implications" unless you just happen to believe that most Jews are "doughy" "pasty faced" "vultures". Is that it?

      Either grow a thicker skin, or stay off the web ya big hiney.

      Yeah mods, mark this one as flamebait. That's what the AC feature is for anyway. Goodnight!

    6. Re:Gotta Love the Lawyers by torokun · · Score: 1

      1. You can't fight supply and demand. Just because you're smart or do hard work doesn't mean you necessarily make cash. 2. You can characterize them as vultures, or you can view their fees as an incentive for overcoming the huge transaction costs of bringing together a large number of potentially harmed investors, and developing and presenting a convincing argument, based on the evidence, statutory law, and synthesis of numerous decisions in past cases. 3. As you surely know from recent corporate scandals, any corporation may deceive its investors, and those investors should have legal remedies. This is the same thing that happens to every other company that presents some potential evidence of deceit. People want to know whether they're being screwed. 4. Law suits, along with the glacial democratic process, are the only real check against corporate abuse.

  16. get fedora by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

    Now is a good time to make sure you have a local mirror of fedora.

    1. Re:get fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why, to beta test their future enterprise products?

  17. Tinfoil Hat by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    That just seems a bit tinfoil hat like to me. I think some days we give too much credits to the boys in Washington. Besides, it's not in their track record to do it that way. I believe their best bet to play the game the old way would be to buy Oracle or IBM in an effort to stop them from using Linux

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:Tinfoil Hat by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      tinfoil hatish? I would agree. But it isn't too far out of the question that microsoft might have bought some of thier stock and became a shareholder to gaim insight into marketing strategy and whatever else they disclose to thier shareholders. Of course i would think that if they participated into the lawsuite it would become public record and somethign might blow up in thier face.

      Investing in the competition is a practice that has been around for years. You will almost always make something by either gaining enough insite to increase the revenue comming into your own buisiness that would drive thier stock down or by them out competing against you and thier prices going up. I know of several companies I have worked for in the past that do this on a regular basis for these exact reasons. Also the impression of competition keeps the consumers from getting the "your just a big evil corperation syndrome" wich i guess is getting into another area.

    2. Re:Tinfoil Hat by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Besides, it's not in their track record to do it that way.

      Not in their track record? This is a company that even has a tactic of hiring so many lawyers that their competitors can't hire any. They are behind campaign contributions, charities, think tanks, and advocacy groups- funding a lawsuit is definitely not implausible for them.

    3. Re:Tinfoil Hat by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      Microsoft would gain nothing in buying shares that they couldn't get without owning shares. Being a small shareholder does not gain you any extra information on business strategy that isn't already publically available through SEC filings. Regulation FD fixed that.

    4. Re:Tinfoil Hat by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Look, fucking idiot, if MS wanted to get rid of Redhat THEY WOULD FUCKING BUY THEM.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    5. Re:Tinfoil Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the justice dept might still have 2 testicles between the hundreds of employees, in which case this could be construed as a restraint of trade, and anticompetitive.

      yes, no one owns Linux, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be *perceived* that way

      -bdbafh

    6. Re:Tinfoil Hat by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of Prozac? Try it out. Just remember it is a pill and not a suppository.

  18. As far as I can tell... by Samrobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RedHat was following the rules (particularly the ones about switching auditors), and their new auditors convinced them to use a slightly different accounting method for their subscription accounting. It looks as if their previous accounting method was not neccesarily incorrect, flawed, or false - just different.

    How is it that someone can bring a class action lawsuit against a company for changing their accounting practices from one one allowed method to another allowed method?

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    1. Re:As far as I can tell... by stienman · · Score: 1

      If it's just different then there would be no need to restate previous earnings. You'd say, "From day X onward we're using a different method to calculate revenue from subscriptions."

      No, they are clearly back paddling and deploying a ton of PR to control the slide. They know now that what they've been doing was incorrect. Chances are good that they knew it wasn't kosher before, but thought it wasn't punishable or thought they could get away with it and didn't think the repercussions if discovered would be too bad for the possible gain.

      -Adam

    2. Re:As far as I can tell... by Joe5678 · · Score: 1

      No... there are really good reasons to restate your previous earnings. Well... really just one I guess. If you don't restate the old ones, then when you claim the income from the contracts now and in the future, you're a claiming income that you also claimed in the past (profits x 2!)

      You need to go back and fix everything before you can go forwards.

  19. I don't care! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I do not care that much! If it were SuSE, I'd be affected. RH abandoned us in order to satisfy the zealots on the other side!

  20. Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by djh101010 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People don't like to be lied by management when they invest their money into the company, and people will launch lawsuits when they deem something inappropriate had been done.

    I suppose some of 'em will, but this holder of a non-trivial number of shares of Redhat stock, sees this as a ploy by an external hostile force (the lawsuits, not the restating, obviously). As such it pisses me off more than it makes me want to take part in such a lawsuit.

    If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations. The P/E ratio isn't relevant to the fact that some sleaseball lawyer, probably in Redmond's pocket, is making a stink about this.

    That having been said, it's a true sign that you're succeeding when your competition feels threatened by you. Sleep well, Bill... the penguin is gonna get you.

    1. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Keep seeing at your investments as a crusade and you will lose your shirt.

    2. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations.

      IANAL but don't you have to join a classaction lawsuit to get any money? Furthermore wouldn't the proceeds of a sucessful lawsuit be increased by you joining (ie value of your shares)? It seems to me for you to join the lawsuit and then donating the money back to Redhat you would in fact just be giving some of Redhat's (and yours since you own stock) money to that sleaseball lawyer.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Keep seeing at your investments as a crusade and you will lose your shirt.

      Not if you never invest more than you are prepared to lose.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can do one better and choose not to participate in the class action. This will serve 2 functions, it will A: give a base of people that rehat can say doesn't believe in the merit of the case and b: lower the total amoutn of money being pulled out of the company reducing the amoutn of fee's the atourney will get. I would bet that if the atourney had to ask the judge to declare resonable fee's for the actions instead of them declaring it, there would be alot less stuff like this going on. It usually apears like the only ones to benefit is the lawers involved in them.

    5. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep seeing at your investments as a crusade and you will lose your shirt.

      Perhaps, but that's nothing compared to what you lose if you suport things you know to be wrong just because you hope to thereby get money.

      -- MarkusQ

    6. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is fundmentally immoral, so you have already lost that.

    7. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by Kombat · · Score: 0, Troll

      If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations.

      I'm going to get modded into oblivion for this, but it has to be said.

      The double-standards here on Slashdot are mind-boggling. When SCO infringes on the GPL, everyone jumps up, guns blazing, and spews venom all over their litigating asses, and we scream about protecting the legitimacy of the GPL and Linux's copyrights. But when the RIAA goes after P2P networks to protect their copyrights, they're evil. We scream how they should leave the networks alone, and instead go after those who are actually causing the problems. So they did. And we screamed at them still!

      "How could they sue a bunch of kids?" we cried. Well, perhaps because that's who's downloading all the music?

      A bug is found in Mozilla. "See, the system works", they say. A bug is found in IE. "Proof positive that Microsoft is crap!" they scream.

      Enron, Worldcom, Nortel, and RedHat all admit that they were lying to investors, and restate their earnings downwards. "Greedy, heartless, bloodsucking corporate bastards!", we scream.

      "... except RedHat. I'll donate money to them, even though they lied to try and manipulate earnings numbers. Because we like RedHat."

      Boggles my mind.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    8. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by Kombat · · Score: 1

      Not if you never invest more than you are prepared to lose.

      That's a gambling axiom, not an investment axiom. When gambling, you're just out for entertaiment, and you have to assume that you won't bring back any of the $100 or whatever that you took into the casino.

      When investing, however, you can have a reasonable expectation of not only staying even (that is, you're not prepared to lose any of what you invested), but also of reasonable growth.

      If you never invest more than you're prepared to lose, how would you ever retire? Where would you put your life savings, if not investments, while you saved up for retirement?

      And in making those investments, isn't it reasonable to expect the companies you're investing in to be honest in stating earnings numbers, to enable you to make an informed decision about where to put your money?

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    9. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Enron, Worldcom, Nortel, and RedHat all admit that they were lying to investors, and restate their earnings downwards. "Greedy, heartless, bloodsucking corporate bastards!", we scream.

      I know this is Slashdot, and R'ing of TFA doesn't happen a lot by people posting, but did you catch the bit where it's a change in methodology that is shifting numbers around, reporting them in a different way? It's the same numbers, the same results, the same totals, just a different way of organizing them.

      So, for you to equate this to Enron's "Wups, where did that 100 billion go? Oh yeah, we hid it in shadow companies and fraud" is asinine.

      Boggles my mind.

      Indeed.

    10. Re:Is posting of contract revenues unusual? by WNight · · Score: 1

      How's trolling working out for you? Do you actually expect people to believe the stuff you say?

      On the off chance that you're serious and seriously misguided, let me explain Slashdot. The are hundreds of thousands of people here, they all have different opinions. It's not hypocritical when two different people believe two different things, let alone hundreds of thousands.

      Further, you can be upset with the methods being used to pursue an overall action you agree with. I do think that the RIAA/etc should sue the people doing the trading. That's how the law is intended to be used and it leaves people like me who use BitTorrent for ISOs out of the way. However, I dislike the RIAA trying to blame the ISPs for traffic flowing over their network. Sure, it'd be easy to block Kazaa on known ports, but it establishes a bad precedent and soon you've got the ISPs being responsible for blocking *some* of the https: traffic when it all looks alike. Completely unreasonable. Further, their requested damages are insanely high. They're asking for damages, as in lost money, of tens of thousand per victim. As if anyone would have spent ten thousand dollars on music in the last year or so, that's years worth of spending even for a hardcore music lover. The industry has this broken idea (like the BSA) that every copy is one that would have been paid for.

      When SCO attacks Linux they aren't simply making unauthorized use of it, they're trying to say that they own it and nobody else can use it. That seems slightly different than people sending protest email to a company that isn't releasing source code to drivers that contain GPLed code. Protest email vs Shutting down Linux... Can you follow?

  21. Explanation by oostevo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just in case that doesn't make sense to anyone, you might want to see this thread from yesterday.

    --
    In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
    Oh wait...
    1. Re:Explanation by FleaPlus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Geeze, it's already made it into the wikipedia entry on Slashdot subculture.

    2. Re:Explanation by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

      Man, that was fast!

  22. Copy & paste journalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP. Goodkind Labaton is one of the country's premier national law firms that represent individual and institutional investors in class action, blah blah, and after that:

    If you bought Red Hat securities between June 19, 2001 and July 13, 2004, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than September 13, 2004. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.

    Yahoo Finance News wouldn't just copy & paste their "news" articles from a press release, would they?

    1. Re:Copy & paste journalism? by tube013 · · Score: 1

      Dude it was a press release straight from the law firm that yahoo picked up all the wires. Its nothing more than PR propaganda. read the top where it says "Press Release"

  23. Sell stakes in the company to Microsoft :-) by syousef · · Score: 1

    ...after you WIN the lawsuit (as per Sun), or after your fortunes fade (as per Apple). Next thing you know your company's viable again, and besides you don't really need your soul while you're still alive do you? :-)

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  24. Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by XavierItzmann · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    This is _not_ offtopic: your perspective con ambulance chasers depends on spin:
    For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children hurt by the indifference and negligence of others. Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families...
    http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_edwards.html

    Likewise, the guys at Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow are just standing up for the small investor. Think of the children!

    Right, and if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. Face it, John Edwards _is_ an ambulance chaser.


    --
    The next pasture is always greener
    1. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ambulance Chasers are by nature attracted to sirens. In this case, Red Hat's announcement.

      A lawyer isn't an ambulance chaser if they don't actively seek out and solicit prospective clients in hospitals or on TV. I have relatives who have litigated very expensive personal injury suits, but that does not necesary mean that said litigator is an ambulance chaser.

    2. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by tube013 · · Score: 1

      Recently Raytheon settled a class action case against them by share holders. the settlement was for $410 million. of that settlement the law firm gets 10% or $41 million. Now everyone of those little share holders are going to see maybe $500 at most (and I think that is an estimate about 500x too big).

      Now I wonder who got helped more by helping all those children or families? The companies sued? The families represented? or Mr. Edwards and company? For tort lawyers its all about the almighty buck. Support Tort Reform!

    3. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you have any evidence to support your claims re: Edwards or just empty bias? If you present such I'll "face it," else, why should anyone take this post as anything other than ad hominem?

      I'm not an American (and don't have a /. account which is why this is AC) and don't particularly care or know about Mr. Edwards, but your post is singularly unimpressive as regards argument.

    4. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      I live in North Carolina and am a firm believer that all Edwards did was make himself rich and raise the cost of health care out of reach of a lot of middle class people. Every one of those suits just raises insurance costs.

      In any form of liability lawsuit, only the lawyers win.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    5. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by nbkolchin · · Score: 1

      JFYI: Sucharow - is a "dirty" word in Russian.

    6. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing people don't realize is that not all of those cases are successful, and not every plaintiff's lawyer (or firm) is successful. In fact, it's a bit like investing -- you have to choose the right cases, the ones that you think will be successful, and if you choose wrong, you'd better hope that you chose right in some other cases. In practical terms, this means that you have to have a fair amount of money to be a plaintiff's lawyer -- you only get paid if you win. It also makes being a class action attorney even more difficult (and whatever problems there are with class actions, they save the court system a bundle of money and time) because those are particularly expensive cases. If the lawyer's firm doesn't make a lot of money off some of those class actions, then that firm won't have the money to represent clients in more difficult cases (they have to invest conservatively). While that's not necessarily a bad thing -- those weaker cases may be objectively weaker, but there will also be the cases in which the opposing attorneys are playing hardball to defend a wealthy client with a lot to lose -- it does mean that without large verdicts in some cases, plaintiff's firms will be crippled to take on the more difficult, more expensive cases.

      So you may get some nasty, unfair judgments in which the lawyers make a ton of money, but you have to look at the money they make across all of their clients, not just those who win cases. They may still make a lot, but it's not going to be as much, and they are doing a pretty difficult job (it can be upwards of 80 hours a week) and one that has a necessary social function. Also, there were probably quite a few lawyers who worked on that case at various times, and each of them have offices to run and staffs to pay. You can make a lot of money in it; but you can lose a lot (there's a reason some people prefer defense firms, even though they pay less at the upper end) and some incentive must exist to encourage people to fulfill that role in society.

    7. Re:Ambulance chaser definition depends on your POV by jejones · · Score: 1

      For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children hurt by the indifference and negligence of others. Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families... (from John Kerry's web site)

      Ah...helping by taking doctors to the cleaners based on junk science claims, and topping off presentations to the jury by trance channeling the unborn. (See this New York Times article for details.) One wonders how such people live with themselves.

  25. How to deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How have other technology companies dealt with this sort of suit?"

    Even Microsoft, the weathiest company in the world, is still subject to the arbitrary whims of US and international law. In the end, Red Hat has to pay whatever a judge sees fit. Welcome to the real world.

  26. You only get out what you put in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Red hat is being sued by its own investors, what do they hope to get out of it? Their own money back... If the share price is now lower than when they purchased their shares, and Red Hat have to write the legal battle off as an expense then the money these investors hope to gain back would be much less than if they just sold their shares and walked away.

    Case of cutting off your own nose to spite your face!

    1. Re:You only get out what you put in by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

      Right on. The lawyers are acting as facilitators for Redhat's owners (the stockholders) to suck some cash out. Never mind that it dilutes the cash flow, net worth, and stock price; Or that the lawyers benefit from their cut. All it takes is one investor to grub for the cash and all the other investors fall in line because they don't want to be left out in the cold from the "free money" handout. Almost every tech firm on the NASDAQ has found themselves in this position as their stock price dropped for one reason or another.

      --
      Have you Meta Moderated t
  27. For those who didn't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Red Hat has college scholarships for talented programmers.

    1. Re:For those who didn't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...for talented programmers in India

  28. A good buy by anim8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the Motley Fool article is right. The drop in the stock price makes Red Hat a good buy right now.

    The downside is the frivolous lawsuit. In the end RH should prevail, but it will spend a pretty penny defending itself. I'm all for class-action lawsuits when they are appropriate. This one against RH is not.

    Tort reform is one of the few issues where I side with Republicans. Fair implementation is going to be the hard part.

    1. Re:A good buy by Erwos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, the article _I_ read said it was still vastly overpriced - it's just that this downturn was not really based on any fundamentals. Red Hat is still making money selling support, and financial rewrites don't change that.

      Ask anybody in my LUG - I'm the biggest Red Hat supporter in the world. But that _does not_ mean their stock is worth buying.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    2. Re:A good buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I don't know about that. The market has several cases of recent accounting restatements. See for example, Omnivision (OVTI) and Sonus (SONSE). In each case they said that it was simply a restatement and that it was a possibility that earnings may even have been higher. All of these stocks tanked .. to the order of 50%... even more in some cases. So Redhat, they'll weather the storm, but it's going to be a rough ride.

    3. Re:A good buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should start a class action suit against the legal firm for lowering the price of Red Hat stock.

    4. Re:A good buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their P/E is over 100! What is worse imho, is that this is not a brand new company gobbling up new business in an unfilled niche. This is a growing but not explosive sector of the market.

      I thought RHAT was a buy at 4 and change, but at 10+ this stock is way overvalued. Even more insane is that a company w/ $150 million in revenue has a market cap of just under 3 billion.

      I would never, ever ever ever buy a stock w/ a P/E of over 100. Watching you guys justify it make me happy somewhere inside though, as I can see that it is indeed possible for another .com era to happen.

      Take emotion out of analysis. I like RHAT, and I think it will be a solidly performing company. But come on now, be realistic.

    5. Re:A good buy by WNight · · Score: 1

      I don't own any Redhat stock, but I don't think their chances are all that bad. There is a huge market untapped for them to fill. Who else makes a good stable server OS that doesn't require gold-plated, diamond-encrusted special hardware? Who sells a ton of *good* support, has a training program widely believed to be very indicitive of actualy skill, and doesn't try to lock you into their product? (As nice as Redhat is, any Linux guy could migrate a server to another distro in a day.)

      The business world is starting to distrust Microsoft for any security purposes (servers), can't afford high-end hardware, and doesn't want to be locked into a bad idea with long-term exclusive contracts and format lock-in.

      When this takes off, who's the big-name player in the x86 OS market, with a rep for security, good support, fair play, and good price? As soon as businesses can justify Linux to the board they're going to go with Redhat because they're the ones who will have the history.

      Maybe it's not a big market in the sense that it's *only* the server market, not enough for them to become an IBM or Microsoft. Many people recognize that companies can offer good value even if they aren't the largest in the world, or a monopoly.

  29. It's a pretty minor restatement - READ THE ARTICLE by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative
    We're over 25 posts, and in the rush to be the first poster, it doesn't seem like anyone has actually READ THE ARTICLE (but this is /.) ... so let me repeat the key point from the Press Release linked above:

    ... the Company determined it would be appropriate to stop recognizing revenue for subscription agreements on a monthly basis - a method it has consistently applied for the last five years Ð and start recognizing revenue on a daily basis over the particular contract term.

    This isn't the typical "ooops, we recognized all the revenue of that 5-year contract this quarter" shin-an-igans that you typically read about - this isn't that huge of change - as referenced in the article, take a look at the restatement table and the net income/loss per share hardly changes.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  30. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This country has a lot bigger problems than lawsuits, asshole.

    Bush. Cheney. Environmental Destruction. Pointless War. Most other nations Hating our Guts. Religious Right trying to destroy any concept of civil liberties. Lack of focus in battle against terrorism. Deficits. Inadequate Education System.

    So go fuck yourself and your tort reform.

  31. Lawyers: Please sue slashdot into oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the "ambulance chasers" sue you off the Internet. I love the information we sometimes get here on /. but the bias is highly sickening.

  32. Re: Restate UP -- happened to FRE by powerset · · Score: 1

    That's what happened to Freddy Mac. The stock still tanked, as I recall. But then it recovered and has done well.

    As I recall, the issue was that they understated earnings to build a buffer they could draw on in future leaner times.

  33. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And our current president keeps saying he is doing EVERYTHING he can to protect the USA from evil doers, well everything but protect our borders.

    Both sides lie.

  34. Re:It will only get worse... by Trent05 · · Score: 1

    What!! But businesses are evil. Sure they employ millions of people. Sure they're double taxed, so they foot the bill for a lot of roads schools and social programs. Sure they sponsor activities like Junion Achievement, after school programs, boy/girl scouts , etc. And then there's the donations made from the companies themselves as well as directly from the employees and the unions, which the corporation directly and indirectly support. But other than that, .001% of all businesses are corrupt! Therefore they should all be destroyed and we should live in anarchy.

    ...or could those WTO protesters and all the drug-fuled brain-power of "Rage Against the Machine" be wrong?!?!

    --


    --
    The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
  35. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, if you're going to bring presidential politics into a techie discussion, you could at least have the decency to say who the heck you're talking about with your off-topic whine.

  36. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fight these ambulance chasers by voting republican. Trial lawyers are supported by democrats (note kerry and edwards were lawyers). ...Of course, this will be marked as a troll, because the only extreme statements allowed are liberal ones. Down with Microsoft [sic]!!!

    1. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's a little Google exercise for you:

      Find out how many signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers.
      Now look up those who signed the US Constitution.

      Yep, more lawyers than any other single profession.

      Here's another question:

      What did Republican President Abraham Lincoln do for a living before he was elected to public office?

      (I'll give you a hint -- it wasn't splitting rails.)

    2. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lincoln was a Republican when it meant something good to the working stiff. Go see Coronado Beach or Naples, FL; the Hamptons or Aspen. Those nuovo-Republicans care about nothing but their money and whether or not they get to shake hands with somebody in power.

      Lincoln would have spit on their votes.

  37. please mod up by lowell · · Score: 0, Redundant

    please

  38. Not to bash or anything by dnotj · · Score: 1
    But does this make you wonder about their recent change in market strategy? Something is amiss, lets push into the Enterprise market (at the expense of the little guy). This could have been an effort to get the books straight before anyone caught on.

    This is going to be an interesting one to watch play out over the coming months.

    Let me say it first, this could be where IBM swoops in, plucks Redhat off the floor, leaves Redhat do Redhat things and everyone lives happily ever after.

    --
    No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.
  39. Re:It will only get worse... by the+argonaut · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'll take two lawyers over an MBA any day of the week, especially when the MBA in question had middling grades, couldn't get into school without daddy's help, and couldn't run a profitable business to save his life.

    --
    fuck you.
  40. suits by BattleTroll · · Score: 1

    This happens all the time. Some lawyer gets it in his head that they can make a killing by filing a lame class action claim, brings in a bunch of suckers who "lost money", and then tries to go after the company in question. In some situations they prevail but only if there's enough evidence lying about to make the claim. The majority of this crap is dropped eventually.

    If Red Hat executives have don't nothing wrong, the suit will go away and just look at how cheap RH shares are going for these days.

  41. Next Class by merky1 · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to sue the class action lawyers for causing an additional artificial drop in price? I understand the anger, but really, this is just a simple issue of conforming to the myriad of rules.

    Funny how this seems to have gained momentum almost overnight, but yet the real crooks are continuing to operate. I'm not just talking about the Enrons, I am more concerned with the fund managers and such. The ones who pimped such winners as Worldcom (and refused to sell it when the end was inevitable(sp?).

    I really hope that the courts can knock this class out early.

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  42. Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About a month ago, Red Hat suddenly lost their CFO. Immediately thereafter, they pre-released earnings in order to cushion the blow. Now we find out two things: (1) the day before the CFO left, their auditor complained about their accounting practices, and (2) they recently received a request for information from the SEC. They didn't announce either of those facts during their extraordinary earnings release or at any time since then.

    Like it or not, those are both material facts. No, the accounting change isn't all that significant, and yes, most SEC audits turn out fine, but that is irrelevant. They did things to prop up their stock price, and didn't publicize all the news, limiting themselves to the better news. To the extent that they propped up their stock price by selectively releasing only positive informaion, they're in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

    Blaming the ambulance chasers for Red Hat's misbehavior is like blaming Janet Reno for Microsoft being held in violation of the Sherman Antitrust laws. Just like MS, Red Hat did this to themselves; the attorneys are just doing their jobs by trying to hold crooks accountable for their crimes.

    1. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I'm not saying that Red Hat did the right thing, I'm just saying that what they did -- at worst -- constituted poor market management, but if the law suits read "Red Hat propped up their stock price for a month before reporting the comments of their auditors", then I could understand (not sure it would go very far, but that's another thing).

      What the suit alleges (at least the first one) is that Red Hat scammed the public out of ... something (it's really not clear what, since they've never reported more earnings than they had, total)... FOR THREE YEARS! Now, that's the part I don't get. They seem to feel that had Red Hat used this new accounting practice, then some magical thing would have happened that would result in their being a better investment today, AND that Red Hat knew that for three years. It really just sounds like a fishing expedition designed to find some dirt during discovery to me....

    2. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by ajs · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry... one more thing in the interests of full disclosure: I'm a (minor) Red Hat stock holder and am not involved in any law suits (though if there were a stockholders-vs-the-ambulance-chasers class action, I might think about it).

    3. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by cfulmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The CFO is still on board. The announcement was that he was going to resign, not that he had.

      Should also note that so far, there are not any plantiffs in the case, only a law firm seeking a lead plaintiff.

      I wonder how easy it'll be for the firm to get this certified as a class action, considering that 11.3% of the stock is held by insiders and 81% is held by institutions. By my book, that leaves under 8% generally owned by the public. That's still around 14M shares, but when you consider that a bunch of those owners probably aren't interested in a class action (many are probably employees or other Linux-lovers), it may make a judge think twice whether or not this 'lead plaintiff' can actually represent the supposedly injured class.

    4. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Look again at Red Hat's history. They announced, with great fanfare, a quarter when they "broke even", and their stock price rose. Except, oops...they didn't break even that quarter. Did they know that they were not really telling the "truth" as dictated by GAAPP? I don't know, for sure, but the corporate officers certainly look guilty.

      Did they do this repeatedly? Well, as a matter of fact, yes. Did they do it intentionally? Who knows? Is it suspicious? You betcha. Add to that the sudden departure of the CFO, coupled with a clear failure to disclose material information, and, yes, there's good reason to look entirely askance at RH's management.

    5. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you say that the were "not really telling the truth", you do mean, "they were not really telling every version of the truth, though they were telling one of the versions that satisfy current rules to the extent that their previous auditors signed off on it", right?

      I mean, we're not forgetting that all of this surrounds, not a failure on Red Hat's part, but a difference of opinion between two auditors (the rules require Red Hat and all publically traded firms to rotate auditors periodically, which is what Red Hat did).

      Also, on the point of the one month period... To go from "hey, you should change your reporting strategy" in an audit to a full public disclosure and revised reports for 3 years, retroatively in a month... I'm no accountant, but isn't that pretty damn fast?

    6. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. The Federal Accounting Principles are notoriously difficult to interpret. That's why I put scare quotes around "truth" -- a perfectly reasonable defense would be to say "this is what our previous accountant recommended". If, however, their previous accountant also complained, and they ignored it, and then their new accountant not only complained, but threatened to throw the book at them...that would be a different matter, right?

    7. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by DeepRedux · · Score: 1

      According to the complaint, the lead plantiff is someone called Fred Den.

    8. Re:Red Hat versus reality is more like it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Blaming the ambulance chasers for Red Hat's misbehavior is like ...
      ... a big fat non-sequitur.
  43. Re:It will only get worse... by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 1

    Of course not, Hollywood sctors and crackheads are never wrong. Did I just repeat myself by implying that Hollywood actors and crackheads were somehow seperate?

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
  44. The joke's on them... by raistphrk · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...suing a company that has all its intellectual property assets under the GPL. Are the lawyers going to try to get their fees from Bob Young's enormous collection of Tux plushies?

  45. Redmond behind it by bstadil · · Score: 1
    The P/E ratio isn't relevant to the fact that some sleaseball lawyer, probably in Redmond's pocket, is making a stink about this.

    I agree with you. Head on over to Groklaw where this theory is being debated. The Yahoo board has comments as well.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  46. Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    For all you whining asshole Republicans:

    ARLEN SPECTER (R - PA)
    Detailed Contributor Breakdown
    2000 ELECTION CYCLE

    Goodkind, Labaton et al $7,600

    Open Secrets

    And before you get all smarmy, yes, they gave to Democrats, too. But Alren Specter didn't turn their money down, either.

    1. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton was way more of a republican than Alren Specter. He is truly RINO (Republican In Name Only)

      Finkployd

    2. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton was way more of a republican than Alren Specter

      Bill Clinton was way more of a republican than GWB! For example, Bush is INCREASING social programs 50% faster than Bill Clinton did. And that's NOT counting the new prescription drug program.

      Also, military spending as a percentage of the overall federal bugdet is currently SMALLER than it was under Carter.

    3. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by finkployd · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with you there either.

    4. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because they didn't put two wars into the budget. Do you work for RedHat's accounting dept or something?

    5. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by Phelan · · Score: 1

      Actually Republicans balancing the budget and being good for deficit reduction is a misconception. Regan, GB1 and GWB all have enourmous increases in the deficit during their time in office. Clinton had a major reduction leading to surplus while Carter had some reduction in deficit.

      So saying that because Clinton could balance a budget that makes him Republican is disingenous.

      And I would really like to know which social programs Bush is boosting. Since he did decrease combat hazard pay for the military and veterans medical benefits among other things.

      Yeah, I'm a fan..let me tell you

      --
      "Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
    6. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Even taking Iraq and Afghanistan into account, the percentage of the federal budget that goes to the military is lower now than during the Jimmy Carter days.

      Perhaps if we get invovled in three more wars simultaneously in addition, the percentage will catch up.

    7. Re:Leading Republican Funded by Goodkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I would really like to know which social programs Bush is boosting.

      Every one. Oh, you may find a program that gets cut. But there will be a duplicate program that gets increased by a greater amount.

      Tell you what, ace. Go to cbo.gov and tell me which social program he's cut and not replaced with a duplicate program.

      BTW, your examples were military budget cuts. Thanks for proving my point. You truly are a stupid person.

  47. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 1

    That is why politics is all about choosing between the lesser of two evils.

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
  48. Enron accountant sale.. by d_jedi · · Score: 0

    I tried to tell Kevin Thompson (CFO of Redhat) that hiring all those Arthur Andersen Enron accountants "for cheap" was NOT a good idea!!

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
    1. Re:Enron accountant sale.. by d_jedi · · Score: 1, Insightful
      LOL.. I didn't even realize this.. here's Thompson's bio from Redhat.com:

      Kevin Thompson brings a unique blend of operational and financial knowledge from his experience with high-growth and multinational companies. He formerly served as a partner in the Global Technology Industry Group of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, where he directed stock offerings and oversaw mergers and acquisitions at public and private technology companies.

      Prior to his position at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Thompson served as a senior manager for Arthur Andersen LLP for 10 years, overseeing public offerings and directing projects for companies in North America, Latin American and Southeast Asia. He is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a bachelor of science degree in business administration with highest honors from the University of Oklahoma.

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
  49. Actually.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never really liked RedHat.

    Saying that gives me a great sense of relief. Finally feel like I have some closure.

  50. Ok, Let me get this straight..... by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

    They're gonna sue RedHat for making their stock a good buy?

    Or are they gonna sue because RedHat corrected a mistake?

    Or are they gonna sue because RedHat failed to cover up their mistake?

    What part of this am I missing?

    I'm sure it will all make sense when the price of oil drops and this law firm takes the oil companies to court because people will be charged less for at the pump.

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    1. Re:Ok, Let me get this straight..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your stupid.
      Its because the mistake happened.
      If you do something illegal, it being a mistake only makes it better, not go away

    2. Re:Ok, Let me get this straight..... by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

      Ok oh wise one. So when someone makes a mistake like that they should not correct it? That would be illegal but you're saying they should do the illegal thing instead?

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  51. Re:It will only get worse... by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 1

    Ok, so two lawyers, lying trial lawyers at that that want to socialize America's healthcare system(which, in your opinion, may be the way to go), are any better than an MBA with less-than-honest ways of going about things? They are equal in my eyes. Until you throw in that John Edwards has no exprience at all in national security, then its a little in favor of Bush because he does have expirence, even if it isn't very good expirence. Being President through 9/11 has to count for something. Not that I'd vote for either one, I'd vote for Michael Badnarik personally.

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
  52. Pushing forward is a temptation but also bad. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft held back signifigant portions of their Windows 2000/Office 2000 era earnings in a "cookie jar" that was supposed to level out revenue after the dot com bubble burst.

    Which also cheats investors - the ones who had and sold stock that DIDN'T go up - or didn't go up as much as it should - because Microsoft understated their earnings. Investors are trading stock all the time, and while investment is not zero-sum a market distortion reified by a transaction during the distortion IS. It helps some investors by hurting others by defrauding them out of their money. Even if NOT reified by a transaction it may have produced an opportunity cost - as someone held stock they could have liquidated for more money to sieze some other opportunity.

    There are tight rules on this.

    Managers believe that investors like stocks that show steady upward growth rather than a roller-coaster revenue chart - even if the area under the roller-coaster is much larger. So some of them try to even things out by pushing parts of windfalls into the next quarter, rather than taking it when it comes and creating future expectations they can't meet.

    My preference would be to take the money and run - then in the post-report conference call tell the analysts that's what we did, what the numbers WOULD have been if we'd fudged, but that if another windfall happens (and we don't get beaten up in the market THIS time) we'll take the money and run again because it's stupid to leave it on the table. Then the analysts can set reasonable expectations for the next quarter.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  53. Ambulance chasers?? by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How the hell are these people "ambulance chasers"? There's no ambulance here, just the kind of shady accounting that we all decry when it's Ken Lay or the guy from worldcom.

    And I love how the poster tries to make it seem like the lawyers are trying to sue because of the announcement rather then the act they were announcing (i.e. that they cooked their books)

    Poster needs to get a clue. Maybe red hat did just make 'a mistake' but they're still liable for it.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Ambulance chasers?? by ONOIML8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whoa dude, hold up on that clue thing for a minute.

      Do a google on that law firm. Then come back and tell us they're not "ambulance chasers".

      And read the press release again. There hasn't been anyone harmed here. That law firm is looking for some patsy to put their name on their trumped up charges.

      I've got to ask you, how is someone harmed if the price of a stock dips? I tend to look at that as a good thing since it allows me to purchase more stock for my money. Was someone forced to sell their stock at a loss here?

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    2. Re:Ambulance chasers?? by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      Do a google on that law firm. Then come back and tell us they're not "ambulance chasers".

      I just did, and now I will.

      "Ambulance Chaser" isn't just slang for lawyer. It's a very specific class of lawyer. It's those guys you see ads for everywhere:
      "Have you or someone you know recently been injured in an accident? We'll fight... FOR YOU! To get the largest settlement possible!"

      A link

      These guys here are corporate types, running a class action suit. Calling these guys "Ambulance Chasers" would be like some mainstream news site referring to Linus as a script kiddie. It's a specific term, with a specific meaning, and you're all using it incorrectly just to vent a little frustration.

  54. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

    Well, there is the alternative. You could vote Kerry/Edwards and put some of the evil doers into that office.

    Hmmm....the fox watching the chickens?

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  55. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The irony here is that many of the individuals on the financial team at Red Hat, responsible for this mess, are themselves Harvard MBAs.

    Also anonymous because of my proximity to the issue.

  56. Re:It will only get worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't double taxed. The shareholder is double taxed. Corporations only pay taxes once - on earnings. The second tax comes on dividends, which arguably don't really affect the company - it isn't paying itself a dividend

  57. Every company has to deal with this s**t by blackhedd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The particular law firm is a new one on me, usually these are done by that scumbag Bill Lerach in San Diego.
    "Strike suits" are a basic fact of life for public tech companies. In fact, it kind of proves RH is growing up.
    The idea is that any sudden movement of a company's stock, in either direction, is actionable because the company presumptively withheld information that impaired the public's opportunity to either profit or avoid losses. Eventually the lawyers quietly get paid huge $$$ to go bother someone else.
    It's just ridiculous that judges even let this garbage into their dockets. Welcome to America.

    1. Re:Every company has to deal with this s**t by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way to end it might be to make the plaintifs lawyers forgo a fee if they lose AND pay the other sides legal fees. But I'm sure that simple justice like this can be avoided with a proper bribe.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:Every company has to deal with this s**t by blackhedd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's called the "English system," for the sensible reason that it's how they do it in Britain. And it's a lovely idea. The counter-argument in the US, which somehow manages to convince all of the morons, it that a "loser-pays" system will somehow keep poor plaintiffs from being able to sue. It's usually the ambulance chasers and their political wing (the Democratic Party) who make this argument. I guess they're trying to make us forget that they work on contingency.

    3. Re:Every company has to deal with this s**t by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In the current system, the only winners in any suit are the lawyers.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    4. Re:Every company has to deal with this s**t by tfoss · · Score: 1
      The counter-argument in the US, which somehow manages to convince all of the morons, it that a "loser-pays" system will somehow keep poor plaintiffs from being able to sue.

      Pray tell why you don't believe that argument?

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    5. Re:Every company has to deal with this s**t by blackhedd · · Score: 1

      If you face the risk that you'll pay the other guy's costs, you'll think very hard about bringing a suit that is anything less than meritorious. That's true whether you're rich or poor. The effect of the English rule is to keep frivolous litigation out of court, not to keep poor people out. If you're poor and have suffered an injury (real or imagined), it's easy to find an attorney to take your case on contingency as long as the attorney thinks there's a reasonable chance that he himself stands to make a few million dollars. In the presence of the English rule, the contingency-fee bar goes away because the lawyer won't risk his own capital on the case, since his downside is much greater. That's a good thing because it restores everyone's (including the plaintiff's) incentive to keep simple cases simple and not argue them for years on end. And if you're a poor person who has truly suffered an injury, I guarantee you that you don't need someone like John Edwards to convince a jury to compensate you fairly.
      Does it surprise you that America is the only place where the legal system is viewed as a way to get rich quick, at the expense of shareholders of large companies and the buyers of insurance policies?
      However in the case of the strike suits which are the subject of this post, the argument is inapplicable anyway because the lawyers go fishing for plaintiffs after they cook up the case, not before. When people talk about making sure the poor have access to the courts, they're not talking about speculators who had a bad outcome in the stock market. These suits are fundamentally frivolous because people who play in the stock market know the risks going in. The RedHat case, and cases like it, should never have been brought.

    6. Re:Every company has to deal with this s**t by tfoss · · Score: 1
      I guess I just worry that with our justice system, having a meritorious claim does not mean you are going to win. In a loser-pays setup, you need to be absolutely sure, have a 100% slam-dunk case if you are suing a large entity as the cost of loss will be severe. While I agree that will certainly decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits, but it would seem to also greatly reduce the number of cases that, while not frivolous, are also not absolutely clear-cut. If we had a perfect justice system (a fact I think everybody agrees is not the case), then I could see how loser-pays would work.

      Another question about a loser-pays system, does the losing law firm pay? If not, then the lawyers have little incentive not to behave as they do now...it just means the clients will get screwed harder. If the law firm is fiscally responsible, then you can bet they will limit the types of cases filed to ones with 3 eyewitnesses, a bystanding police officer, on video tape with perfect DNA evidence. This is essentially limiting the value of the judicial system if it only deals in cases that are so obvious it would take braindead jurors to find against. As is clear juries can do strange things, return results seemingly at odds with popular perception (OJ's innocence, etc etc), it just seems like loser-pays would not work.

      I would also agree that our society if far too litigious as a whole. I guess I'm not convinced though, that loser-pays is the best solution in a rather squishy justice system. I wish there were a better one, but it seems the lack of such an idea is the reason tort reform is so complicated.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
  58. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if Bush doesn't win then the GOP in the house and senate will wake up and realize that they aren't Dems and stop acting and spending like them?

    You can't be happy with what the GOP has become, can you?

  59. INSIGHTFULL!??! by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    What the hell is with this moderation? This isn't insightfull, it's innane.

    It sounds like this isn't the first problem with redhat, and I hope they can pull out of it. But a lot of people may have sunk money into RH thinking it was a good investment, and run by professionals.

    red hat's earnings per share are dropping form a measly 3 to an even mealier 2. If you think that's "profitable" you're out of your mind.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  60. Unbelieveable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It amazes me that lawyers can argue that they are due something. RedHat has never paid one single dividend. I know, I have owned RH stock since the IPO (yea, I SHOULD Have dumped it when it was $304 a share... 'doh). The price on stocks like this is pure speculation. Whatever the company states doesn't amount anything since you get nothing. Even mighty Microsoft hasn't paid a dividend or if they did paid one single one and they are way bloated with cash! Where is the class action suit against them for hording the profits so much?

    Stock like GE or Mattel I could understand it but not this one. Too bad we can't go after the lawyers somehow. Being a stock holder that will be included in this suit regardless of if I want to or not, I'm sure I'll get a worthless coupon for something while the trial lawyers get millions. I supposedly get hurt and they make the bucks! I say they should get the worthless coupons and we get the money. Give them coupons for RH Linux support and product and for nothing they already owe. That is what I got for my "damages" from the Cellular One class action suit for over billing on time a few years ago - coupons for future service. I didn't even have Cellular one for a carrier at that point.

  61. This happened to me at C-Cube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I worked at C-Cube, makers of the first MPEG video decoder chip, in the late 90's. It was great fun and it looked like I was going to make a fortune on my stock options.

    Then the organized short sellers hit. Then the class action law suit. The stock tumbled. My options went under water. I made nothing.

    Watch out Red Hat. These soul sucking vultures can destroy your stock price and your company. Your CEO will waste so much energy dealing with this distraction that your core business will suffer. Next employees will start leaving. It is a downward spiral.

    It happened to me. My advice, take this threat seriously. Good luck.

    1. Re:This happened to me at C-Cube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at C-Cube, makers of the first MPEG video decoder chip, in the late 90's. It was great fun and it looked like I was going to make a fortune on my stock options.

      Yeah, it was the lawyers' fault that your tech options tanked. (NB: tech options + late 90s).

    2. Re:This happened to me at C-Cube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worked at C-Cube, makers of the first MPEG video decoder chip, in the late 90's. It was great fun and it looked like I was going to make a fortune on my stock options.

      They have a support group for people who lost money in the late 90s. It's called "EVERYONE."

  62. More Information wanted by RichiP · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know why RH is restating their financial performance? Could they not have predicted the possible repercussions of their CFO leaving and now this and done something about it? Or did they understimate how people would overreact (if overreact they did)?

    1. Re:More Information wanted by RichiP · · Score: 1

      Well, seems Melanie Hollands has her analysis over at IT Manager's Journal: http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=04 /07/14/216221

    2. Re:More Information wanted by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Their accountant recommended the change and restatement. We don't know how "strongly" they recommended it. In any case at that point it would have been extremely stupid not to do it as soon as possible since any delay would give people purchasing shares between when they found out and when they published the information ammunition for lawsuits.

  63. WRONG by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Redhat's P/E is an amzing 125.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said price to SALES, not proce to EARNINGS.

      Douchebag.

    2. Re:WRONG by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but nobody in financials gives a shit about P/S, because P/S can be huge while a company is tanking.

      P/E is the ratio people actually use. While grandparent may have correctly stated what he was talking about (P/S ratio), his attribution that RH's is good is a loaf of crap.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    3. Re:WRONG by fname · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's really not complicated. I stated P/S because that what I meant to do; the earnings part of price/earnings is easily manipulated, and when a company is restating earnings, it's probably not the best measure of a company. I prefer to look at price/sales, sales growth, and a guess of a growing company's eventual margins. I think it's a good way of estimating what the earnings will be in a few years. Sales numbers are much harder to mess with, as a 10% change in revenue recognition will completely wipe-out earnings. The myopic focus on P/E is part of the reason companies cook their books.

      anyways, I was trying to point that right now Red Hat has low sales, and their margins are unlikely to improve much because their costs (mostly labor) will scale with their revenue. Many old-line companies are like this, such as Ford Motor Company & Apple. OTOH, pure software companies who make their money more from licenses than services (think Oracle and Microsoft and Adobe and Yahoo!) saw their net margins improve substantially as they grew in size. This is why Amazon is trying to get more 3rd party sales (high gross margins) as part of their sales mix to accompany their own sales (low gross margins).

      In short, I don't really care what Red Hat's P/E is right now; I'm more interested in what their earnings will be in 5 years, at which point the P/E will probably be 15-30. Since their margins aren't ever going to be great, they'll need a ton of top-line growth. The P/S will probably be 4:1 eventually (based on net margins of 12-25%), which means they'll have to quintuple their sales, to $750 million. That's like 50% annual growth, and I don't think they can pull it off.

    4. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...he didn't say it was good. He said they "have to grow a lot to justify that price"; ie it looks overpriced. R -> C -> P. In Japan.

    5. Re:WRONG by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      You're completely right, and I'm on crack. Japanese crack, at that.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  64. ./ Bias -- Unheard of, no way, it doesn't happen!! by matthewcharlesgoeden · · Score: 0

    If any other company was getting drilled for shady business practices, ./ readers would be jumping at the chance to join the class action to collect. Unfortunately, ./ readers think anything against a pro-OSS company is evil.

    WAKE UP -- mistating finacial earnings of a publicly traded company is not cool!!

  65. Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Hat is doing well, but can they weather major class action law suits without harming the business?

  66. That's happened by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    After the whole Enron thing, a large company (I forgot who) restated their earnings, and actually multiplied their revenues by 3. What they had been doing was storing money off the books so that they could keep their numbers good even when things were bad.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:That's happened by Galuvian · · Score: 1

      I believe that was Freddy Mac, see the post above yours.

  67. How can someone sue? by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Anyone can sue anyone else at any time, regardless of the facts.

    It's like buying a lottery ticket. You're going to lose a lot of the time, but sometimes you win big.

    1. Re:How can someone sue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, summary judgments usually take care of clearly unwinnable lawsuits, and they take place pretty early in the preceedings. So if the lawsuit is groundless, it'll probably get tossed out by the judge pretty early on a defense motion for summary judgment.

    2. Re:How can someone sue? by WNight · · Score: 1

      This is simply like ripping your lottery ticket up as soon as the first two numbers indicate you didn't win - it's not going to stop people from playing the game or the odds, the results are just announced more quickly.

      What you need to do is assess huge punative damages on parties who file frivolous lawsuits. Bankrupt these opportunistic lawyers and disbar them. That way there'll be some risk to offset the huge potential wins. Otherwise they'll try again in a week over some other imagined offence.

      Of course, to do this you'd need to pierce the corporate veil (I think that's the expression) and go after the people funding these things, otherwise you'd simply bankrupt a shell corporation and another would pop up like a cockroach. But IMHO, that'd be a good thing, there are too many laws letting criminals keep unreasonable ammount of money. Like Florida's law exempting your primary residence from bankruptcy settlements. On the surface it's fine, until you have $50M houses. I feel they should be forced to sell the house and then, from the proceeds, can buy a house more in line with the state average (a trailer in a swamp? It *is* Florida after all...) and the rest of the money could go to creditors.

  68. Periodicity by beldraen · · Score: 2, Informative
    In order to comply with its accountant's recommendations, the company in its restatement will shift revenue recognition for the firm's Linux services to more closely follow the exact date that service agreements begin. In effect, it moves some of the revenue previously recognized in the first month of the contract to the last month, and that appears to be it.
    There is a basic concept in accounting that the revenue should be displayed on the books in the same period that it is earned. While this sounds like a simple thing, in practice it can be very difficult. Do you consider the revenue earned when you sign the contract? Do you consider it earned when you do work? Do you consider it earned when customer requests work? How do you handle it if the work continues over more than one accounting period? How do you handle it if they fail to pay for the work?

    Sounds like me that they decided the booking for their system was out of kilter for one month and just adjusted the entries back by one. Unforunately, it is the ignorant masses that do not understand it; they caused the price drop. Personally, I would see this as a sign that they wanted a more strict book keeping, which on the face of it sounds like responcible accounting behavoir. Take basic accounting and you'll quickly realize there are many complex issues and multiple ways to be "right."

    My two cents,
    --
    Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
    1. Re:Periodicity by Galuvian · · Score: 2, Informative
      Thank you for making the first post with a rational explanation (that I've seen).

      According to this article, they are making 2 changes in their accounting practices. 1) The one you already explained about recongizing the revenue per day, and 2) Shifting some recognition from the first month of the contract to the final month. (Which you mentioned but didn't elaborate on.)

      The effects of the first change should be small, since it is just making their accounting more fine-grained. The effects of the second change could be big. It will shrink a LOT of their older statements, and help to make their current statements look bigger than they would have been otherwise. I don't know enough about accounting to say if this is a more 'correct' way to account for the revenue, but if I were a cynic I'd say it is a convenient way for them to make their current and future earnings look larger...

    2. Re:Periodicity by beldraen · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there are a lot of things in accounting that can be view from a cynic's position. In the end, accounting is a representation of the behavoir of a company. Like all representations, it is predicated from a certain point of view. If the book keeping is done honestly then while the money may make some areas look more pronounced, it should make other areas look less pronounced. If they are moving the money towards the final month I suspect that they were assuming some of the work would be completed, even though it hadn't been done yet, up front. Perhaps it might be the non-refundable portion of the contract or something; however, just because it is non-refundable it doesn't mean you can claim it as revenue. You have to do something to generate revenue and they are now suggesting that completion if this revenue is happening more in the final month. They are being more conscious of not stating revenue they haven't earned, for whatever reason.

      And, thank you for the complement.

      --
      Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
    3. Re:Periodicity by Oswald · · Score: 1
      You imply that this change is trivial, and one could certainly get that impression reading Redhat's explanation of the thing, but there are underlying issues that shareholders are right to be concerned about. The previous practice was to recognize an entire month's revenue in the first month of a subscription regardless of what day of the month the subscription actually began. That means they claimed a month of revenue for, on average, 15 days of subscription for the first month of each subscription, and "gave it back" at such time as the subscription expired.

      Now I don't know how long the average subscription lasts, but if it's 24 months (to pull a number out of thin air), that would mean Redhat has been claiming revenues two years before they are actually earned. That's enough fudging to get people's attention.

      I don't think it's fair to call shareholders "ignorant" for wanting out of a company that loses its CFO, issues quarterly earnings, then ends up restated those same earnings (as well as the preceding 3 years)--all inside one month. Furthermore, this page indicates that about 91% of Redhat's outstanding shares are held by corporate insiders or mutual funds. Does that make them financial geniuses? No, but "ignorant masses" seems a bit strong. Let's just say that if they sold because they thought this news would make the stock go down, they were right.

  69. Re:It will only get worse... by XryanX · · Score: 1

    "Harvard MBA or the two lawyers"

    Bush went to Yale, not Harvard.

  70. Microsoft has a very high P/E by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Microsoft actualy has a very high P/E, the industry average is 20.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  71. "Here in America... by kravlor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... you can sue anybody for anything. It doesn't mean you'll win."

    I like to repeat that saying to myself when reading about lawsuit X, which I heard from a very successful personal injury law firm leader.

    IANAL, but it seems to me that this public admission of change from one acceptable accounting practice to another should help things blow over; we'll likely see this case dismissed.

    It also strikes me as odd that they'd put out a press release about their shiny new lawsuit without a plaintiff.

    1. Re:"Here in America... by vidarh · · Score: 1

      That's normal for class action lawsuits. If the lawsuit gets class action status in the, then you can get treble damages, of which typically 1/3 goes to the lawyers, 1/3 goes to the lead plaintiffs and 1/3 goes to the rest of the class. So consider the press release an ad to find someone who bought Redhat shares in the period that have a somewhat plausible claim to having lost money, and in return will get 1/3 of any settlement or judgement.

  72. Thanks RedHat for a 300% profit in 7 days! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cashed in on close to a 300% (thats right 3 times the money I invested) profit on August Calls at 20, bought at 0.95 and sold at 5.10 today. Nice work for a 7 day investment.

    Options totally rock cause they give you so much leverage. Those who didn't realize RHAT's share price was inflated at 20 deserved to get spanked.

    I consider what I do open-source capitalism, I help others correct their incorrect share prices.

    1. Re:Thanks RedHat for a 300% profit in 7 days! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Increased your money by 300%. Cool.

      Now you almost have enough to buy a new Playstation 2.

    2. Re:Thanks RedHat for a 300% profit in 7 days! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you think I'm anti-redhat by profiting off of the perceived "loss" of you nerd's wonder stock. I don't care one way or the other, its all money.

      It never pays to be a bagholder or a teabagger in your case.

  73. The root problem by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Earnings statements are done within the US tax code. There is no one on the face of this earth that knows everything in that abortion. It's huge, with a hundred years of crap that never got deleted, and it changes every single year. It is impossible for the IRS to keep up with all of it, why should anyone be surprised if a mistake is made?

    It's time to junk the whole thing and go far a flat rate with no loopholes, for individuals and businesses. It would end the cottage industry of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants that make a fortune translating, modifying, and manipulating the mess.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    1. Re:The root problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for a +6...

      Won;t happen though, because

      1) Accountants make money off interpreting the codes
      2) Solicitors make money off enforcing the codes

      Also, have you noticed that many accountants are married to solicitors? A great majority of both types run in the same circles too.

    2. Re:The root problem by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      You lost me, what does the tax system have to do with reporting earnings to your shareholders under SEC/GAAP rules?

      Even if you had no company tax at all, you would still have to report your results.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:The root problem by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your comments on the complexity of the tax code, earnings statements are _not_ done under the tax code. In the US (other countries don't have this particular eccentricity), the accounting for tax purposes and the accounting for reporting purposes are quite different, and often yield notably different results.

    4. Re:The root problem by fallen1 · · Score: 1
      Here! Here! A flat (rate) tax would make things much better overall IMHO. Basically, make it voluntary as to how much "tax" you pay (to a point it is voluntary since, if all goods are taxed, everyone has to eat and we would pay "taxes" in that respect). Here is a little more info on the subject.

      Plus, when the person hiring me says "We're willing to pay you $70,000 per year" I don't want to have to go "OK, let's see, 70k*.65 = ~45k per year after taxes". With a flat tax, what you agreed to work for you ACTUALLY get. Then _I_ can determine where to spend my tax money. I like that idea.

      --

      Dream as if you'll live forever.
      Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
      ~Anonymous~

    5. Re:The root problem by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Earnings statements are based on what goes on the tax forms. They are inter-related. The SEC rules still follow the tax guidelines. They also have an ethical standaed. Snoort, like ethics has any chance where lawyers are involved.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  74. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not too happy with what either party has become. Neither seems to have much respect for the hows and whys of this country. The GOP is only slightly more "on track" than the Dems.

    Maybe if I were rich enough I would like the feudal system the Dems prefer.

    Maybe if I hadn't lived in the real world so long I would be able to believe that it's possible to please everyone all the time and be "Everyman" like the GOP.

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  75. Re:It will only get worse... by XryanX · · Score: 1

    I take that back.

  76. This story demonstrates why I'm leaving slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot will never be a true/respected news entity because its news articles are biased. How many articles have we seen deriding Microsoft for every littlest thing, and shrugging off every Linux bug (or in this case financial scam) as if it's not worth shrugging for. Blah. I'm tired of this bullshit biased so-called "news."

  77. Email the ambulance chasers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not let the ambulance chasers know how you feel.

    1. Re:Email the ambulance chasers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not let the ambulance chasers know how you feel.

      Great idea. Done. Of course, they'll probably end up suing you for sending them your thoughts.

  78. Re:It will only get worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being President through 9/11 has to count for something.

    Yeah, at least we know he can read "My Pet Goat".

  79. Re:It will only get worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bush went to Yale, not Harvard.

    Actually, you are right and wrong, he went to both.. His MBA was from harvard though, BS from Yale

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

  80. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    The GOP wants a Feudal system too. Look at all hand outs that Bush has signed into law. Someone has to pay for all that crap and the generations that have to will be nothing more than serfs if something isn't done.

  81. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

    Actually that's just the lie they would have you believe should you fail to believe the lie that one of them is actually the good guys.
    There are more than two parties out there as well as totaly independant persons at all levels.
    The third biggest party is the Libertarians, I tend to vote for them unless the candidate in question is a loser. But they are not the only alternative.
    But they have no problem painting anyone not a (R) or a (D) as loner and likely a nutjob. They constantly feed the bad loop of you have to vote r or d or else your wasting your vote because almost no-one votes for anyone else.
    This chicken-egg problem they love so much is like the problem linux has with games and some other software.
    The ONLY way out is if people start actually voting FOR the candidates they want, rather than trying to figure out which of the two bought and paid for parties are owned by the least objectionable.
    But it won't happen in one or even two election cycles, you have to vote consistantly for the best person out of ALL the choices constantly and urge your friends and familly to do likewise. It's the only way that doesn't involved a second american revolution or other scary-ness to get out of the current bought and paid for system where the people are just there to pay taxes and buy things.
    Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is still voting for evil.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  82. Re:It will only get worse... by XryanX · · Score: 1

    Aye, I realized that after I submitted it.

  83. Ambulance Chasers by Twintop · · Score: 1

    Tux did a hit and run on WHO'S car? And he's hiring Jonnie Cochran??? Oh boy...

  84. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

    Too true. I guess the thing about the GOP is that there is some sort of hope that it would be an investment that will pay off down the line. Not much of a hope but at least it's a dream.

    The alternative is to be told by the Dems that you're too stupid to have money or even to have hope. Instead we should be thankful to have them support us. Thank you Master, may I have another?

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  85. I'm a curse of their stock by melted · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know why RHAT fell so hard? Because I bought a few shares just a few weeks ago. Whatever stock I buy, the behavior is the same - it goes down the drain really quickly.

    Now if RHAT pays me a million bucks I'll dump the stock and their problems may go away. Or they may not.

    1. Re:I'm a curse of their stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please inform us anytime you are going to be purchasing any stock, so we can get out of it.

      Thanks

  86. Nothing wrong going on here by X-Nc · · Score: 1

    There's a great piece on this whole thing by Melanie Hollands in the IT Manager's Journal that goes into excruciating detail on this topic. RH is doing nothing wrong. It's a normal happening in the business world. The use of the term "Ambulance chasers" in the original post was dead on. I don't particularly like nor dislike RH but this kind of greedy BS that Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP are doing smells of the same stench as TSG & Microsoft.

    --
    --
    If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
    1. Re:Nothing wrong going on here by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, those bastards, making people sue Red Hat against there will.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Nothing wrong going on here by X-Nc · · Score: 1

      Heh, not quite. They are trying to use the general publics ignorance of how this whole business financial systems works to get them to sue RH in order for "those bastards" to get a lot of money. They don't care about the general public. As someone already posted, go google and see for yourself. Or read the link I referenced.

      --
      --
      If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
  87. The rules are the rules... by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because people here think that Red Hat is a good company doesn't mean that Red Hat is held to a lower standard. An earnings restatement is an earnings restatement. If they did wrong they should suffer the paint that other "restaters" have felt. Subscription accounting models are very difficult to account for and have caused problems for many in the past.

  88. Why wasn't this post modded up as interesting? by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

    Why wasn't "Pushing forward is a temptation but also bad." modded up as interesting? I mean, it was alot more interesting than the other 40 posts I read before it. Actually made some sense!

    Also, for a previous poster, do you have a link to this "cookie jar" allegation - maybe some real proof? I must have missed it somewhere along the way.

    --
    Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    1. Re:Why wasn't this post modded up as interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Federal authorities are investigating Microsoft Corp.'s, practice of setting aside some of its software revenues and recognising them later, chief financial officer Greg Maffei said. Maffei said in a conference call with reporters and analysts that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission apparently launched the probe after a newspaper report drew attention to a dispute over whether the company dips into its "cookie jar" of reserves to smooth financial results."
      Microsoft Says SEC Probing Accounting Practices

      "The Securities and Exchange Commission is reviewing potentially improper accounting procedures at Microsoft, according to a company executive. The federal agency is investigating how the company accounts for its financial reserves and related policies, according to Greg Maffei, chief financial officer for the leading PC software maker. Microsoft is cooperating with the SEC's efforts, he said."
      SEC probes Microsoft's accounting methods

      "Microsoft Corp. is still being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possibly underestimating its revenue in order to show a sustained earnings growth, according to a published report. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the software provider, which disclosed the investigation more than two years ago, is of limited concern to analysts. But it said the investigation is the flip side of the current investigation of the collapse of Enron Corp., a company that is accused of overestimating its profits in financial reports."
      SEC probes Microsoft

    2. Re:Why wasn't this post modded up as interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks AC

  89. What is the BFD by james_in_denver · · Score: 3, Informative
    Okay, so instead of calculating earnings from subscriptions on a monthly basis, RedHat is now going to calcuate subscriptions revenue on a daily basis. Big "F" deal. Total number of recorded subscriptions will stay the same, total subscription revenue will stay the same. The only difference might arise from how RedHat might have invested that money during an accounting cycle.

    All they effectively did was change a "YY/MM" field to "YY/MM/DD".

  90. Mod Parent Up by Cyn · · Score: 1

    sanity in an insane world.

    P.S. - parent - stop reading the articles, those of us who read aren't supposed to post.

    Oh crap, some men in suits are at my door.

    --
    cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
  91. You're not really a public company... by winkydink · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...until you've been sued by Millberg Weiss. They sue everybody.

    Get over it.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:You're not really a public company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that article in Forbes. Everyone in the US should have read that article in Forbes. There would have been an immediate grass roots campaign for tort reform, if not the outright slaying of ambulance-chasing lawyers.

      Talk about vultures, that group is the worst of the bunch.

  92. Ambulance Chaser Definition by DecadeSol · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on July 14, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Red Hat, Inc.

    ambulance chaser
    n. Slang

    1. A lawyer who obtains clients by persuading accident victims to sue for damages.

    Does a class action civil lawsuit equal a "lawyer who obtains clients by persuading accident victims to sue for damages?"

    1. Re:Ambulance Chaser Definition by von+Prufer · · Score: 1

      Well, they don't have a plantiff yet and they are trying to convince shareholders to sue for apparent damages. I'd say that qualifies.

    2. Re:Ambulance Chaser Definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ambulance chaser
      n. Slang

      1. A jew.

  93. These are just nuisance lawsuits by jimfrost · · Score: 1

    These kinds of "sue them because the stock price dropped" are nuisance lawsuits, they happen all the time with publicly traded companies. No big deal.

    --
    jim frost
    jimf@frostbytes.com
  94. Re:I HATE REPUBLICANS AND I HATE DEMOCRATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my grandfather is a mayor and a democrat.

    the town is 8000 people. they don't even rate a dairyqueen. ...corporate scum indeed.

    i.e. you fail it

  95. Re:This story demonstrates why I'm leaving slashdo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, its biased here -- who every claimed it wasn't.

  96. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    You can't be happy with what the GOP has become, can you?

    Don't know about him, but as a registered Republican and one who voted for Bush, I'm not happy about today's GOP either.

    But Repubs like myself can't be happy with a Democratic party that keeps leaning increasingly left either. I agree with the criticisms from within that party, from people like Zell Miller. The Republicans are floundering, and the Democratic party is squandering a golden opportunity by going in the opposite direction that they should be.

    Making John Edwards a VP is merely a token nod. Just as Lieberman as a VP candidate. Leaning the party more towards these men would pull me from the Republican party in a hurry. At least until the Republican party remembers WTF they're supposed to be about.

  97. Relax. This is bogus and happens all the time. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Isn't it just grand how thousands of very intelligent geeks spent countless hours creating and improving Linux and Red Hat, and now a bunch of doughy, pasty-faced vultures at "Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP" will rake in an assload of cash from this?

    Naw.

    There are a number of sleazebag outfits like "Dewey, Sooem, and Howe" who file class action suits every time a stock takes a major dive, and advertise for some (possibly former) stockholder to sign on as lead plantif. (Expect several more before this is over.)

    Usually what happens is they get before a judge and get pitched out on their ear. Occasionally the company screwed up, in which case they MIGHT get some judgement - of which Dewey et. al. split a big chunk and a bunch of stockholders maybe get pennies per share. It's like playing the lottery, for law firms with some small-change time on their hands.

    They almost never get anywhere. But when a whale truly IS wounded the shark's chunk is SO big that every time there's blood in the water the sharks circulate in hopes of a feed.

    Red Hat will no doubt slap these guys down in due course - at which point you will see a small note in the stock's news page. That's part of why corporations keep at least one attorney on staff. Partyl to make sure they stay squeaky-clean - partly to lead the coutner-attack when somebody says they're dirty.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  98. Re:bwahahaha by smash · · Score: 1
    Of course!

    Who could dispute such a clearly worded and concise argument :)

    Ermm... actually - this particular auditor suggested changes that the previous auditor did not.

    Zero effect to their financial position. Its nothing to do with Redhat's financial practices at all.

    Yes, you're just being a troll, but come on now, at least try a little harder...

    smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  99. Will Rodgers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy some stock and when it goes up sell it. If it doesn't go up don't buy it.

  100. Re:I HATE REPUBLICANS AND I HATE DEMOCRATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh boo hoo. party politics sux is what I'm saying. and sure, there are a few decent people amoung them, and the rank and file are ok.

  101. A RedHat 9 to Fedora upgrade is easy... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have yum. I swear to god... I did a fresh install, pointed yum at the appropriate mirror, and did a dist-upgrade. The only thing it didn't fix was the /etc/redhat-release still being used in the /etc/issue* banners.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  102. Ask Nortel how they do it by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1


    They still haven't figured out how much money they made in the past 3 years!

    Seriously!

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  103. Moreover it is my opinion... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that the stock price dropped not because of the SEC filing, but primarily because of the lawsuit brought against them AFTERWARDS.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Moreover it is my opinion... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      HAA.. you do bring a verry interesting point here.

      can you imagine, "well your honor, after we saw a dip in the price we decided to anouce our intentions to file this suite so it would drop alot more and we would have somethign to actually complain about" and the judge replies "and in what little world of your's does this make it remotly possible to be redhats fault?" and then the lawer replies "well why would a wookiee live on endore?....)

  104. Mod up funny, someone, please. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  105. there's fans then there's fans by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just don't get it. With fedora, I'm getting the same deal I was getting with the distro when it had redhat slapped on the label. I get a full OS, the price is right, in my case a few bucks plus shipping, and free security and enhancement updates. When I am stuck on something I go look on google. When I had a boxed set with RH on the label, it cost me 60 clams, and I got free security and enhancement updates. The only difference is I got some redhat stickers and a dead trees version of the manual. When I got stuck on something back then I went and looked on google. I have a better distro with more stuff than two years ago, and it costs me less, so I should be mad at redhat and..huh?

    You make money from free software primarily by using that software in your other, *real* business, building/selling/servicing widgets.

    Redhat got two versions,one sorta free kinda,and one really really free,and it actually costs them to provide it. One for businesses who are theoretically making enough money using computers somehow to be able to pay a fee for the "pro-commercial" version, and another one for hobbiests and enthusiasts who agree to help out and help develop and look for bugs, etc. Seems reasonable to me.

    I don't see what the big negative deal is really. Either version works, the pro version has a different and more tweaked server and some other doo-dads obviously, but you get more support. The really free version has everything you need as well, just somewhat different, I mean apache is apache and whatnot. The money has to come from someplace. I think they made the right move, to both stay in business and keep getting better, and to offer the most to the most people for the most purposes (and most budgets to boot). It's not perfect, but what is?

    1. Re:there's fans then there's fans by treat · · Score: 1
      I just don't get it. With fedora, I'm getting the same deal I was getting with the distro when it had redhat slapped on the label.

      Not really. They want you to know that Fedora is not stable and is not to be used if you're using it for something important since you might be willing to pay for RHEL.

      Consider FC2 being released without Firewire support. Or for a more recent example, a serious security hole that no patch has been released for yet. You can't use a distro for business purposes if known security holes go unpatched for multiple weeks.

    2. Re:there's fans then there's fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider FC2 being released without Firewire support.

      Are you suggesting that they SHOULD have included firewire support when it was KNOWN to be unstable? Besides, it's irrelevant at this point since it was re-enabled in first kernel update, or are you suggesting people should run unpatched FC2 as well?

      Or for a more recent example, a serious security hole that no patch has been released for yet.

      That's hardly a security hole at all, much less serious. And there's no patch in any other distro either, even the so-called enterprise ones, so how exactly is this a Fedora-only problem?

    3. Re:there's fans then there's fans by zogger · · Score: 1

      I understand that. I mentioned there are two versions, one for business and one for hobbiests. You use the right one for the right job (or non job in my case, just a free OS). Seeing as how I'm not a business, I went for the one that suits my needs, which aren't as critical as for a business. I expect the version I use to be betaware, that's the whole idea, that's the version that gets both new features and also you expect more bugs. As they get worked out, the knowledge gets applied to the commercial product, which you can buy boxed set, or if you don't mind a kit form and some assembly required, I think you can still get FTP piece by piece. And I know there's cheaper whitebox versions as well from third parties.

  106. The only issue is... by mfifer · · Score: 1

    ...that they changed the rules:

    1) something
    2) something
    3) profit^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ;-)

    sorry - SOMEONE had to make that joke!

  107. Not really a big by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

    My company had class action problems when earnings fell way below estimates for a quarter... right after the dot com bubble burst. There wasn't really much we could do about it as we got caught dreaming of unrealistic expectations just like so many other technology companies. All the "ambulance chasers" appeared out of the woodwork claiming our CFO and CEO misled investors, yada, yada, yada... Eventually, our company recovered and all the class action lawsuits mysteriously vanished.

    Are such seemingly frivolous class action suits at the first sign of blood a good or bad thing? I prefer to look at it from a higher plain... These lawsuits are an important part of the Capitalist "food chain". Though on an emotional level, we may be rooting for our beloved Red Hat, it's important for the vultures to be flying around in circles over head at the first sign of weakness. Nature does it for a reason: the fittest must survive and the weak must become a quick meal for successful predators. Unfortunately, sometimes cute little furry bunny rabbits get eaten up. Such is the nature of the game.

    The posturing and lawsuits are all part of an elaborate check and balance system that keeps CFOs honest and our economy running efficiently.

  108. Who benefits by Comatose51 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure why they're sueing Red Hat since the plaintiffs are the stock holders of Red Hat and the defendant is Red Hat which is owned by the stock holders. The only one who's going to profit from this are the lawyers.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  109. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you think that Zell Miller is actually a Democrat?

    Damn, I never thought I would say this to a Republican but.......

    Can I get some that shit you're smoking?

    Dude, the guys hangs from Hannity's nuts harder then any Republican. He is an joke.


  110. It's not slashdot bias. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, Slashdot is anti-RedHat for the most part, because they felt "betrayed" by Fedora.

    No, /. is just taking the POV of the articles they're linking too, which is often the case.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  111. easy solution by jdkane · · Score: 1
    How have other technology companies dealt with this sort of suit?"

    By not misreporting their earnings in the first place.

  112. Ambulance Chasers! by technoCon · · Score: 0, Troll

    Heaven forfend that you should dis the Democrat vice-presidential candidate's profession.

    (Have you ever noticed that anything to the right of Mao Tse Tung gets moderated "troll" on Slashdot?)

  113. Happens when you go public. by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

    In this great capitalistic government, I mean economy, when you go public with your company most of the big share holders want a constant money flow--and lots of it. Through some lawyers who are always in it for the money and you have a volatile situation. If the flow stops the investors will find other ways to get the money.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  114. Helping the shareholders? Haa! by 1337+Twinkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How exactly is this suit supposed to "help" the shareholders? Isn't the company OWNED by the shareholders? The lawyers are essentially suing the shareholders, then, right? Sounds like the lawyers are just looking to fatten their wallets.

    1. Re:Helping the shareholders? Haa! by vidarh · · Score: 1
      It is supposed to help the shareholders that bought during the period when the financial irregularities occurred, presumably arguing that these shareholders either bought at a price inflated due to the irregularities, or bought because they thought the reports seemed better than the restated numbers will be.

      These lawsuits are very common, as class action lawsuits in the US can be insanely lucrative for the lawyers if they win. You can be awarded triple damaged, and the lawyers get a third of the awarded damages. Imagine for a moment (this is purely hypothetical and quite unlikely) the lawyers manage to successfully argue that the actual damage was $5 per share, relatively close to the drop in share price after the announcement. Now damages could then possibly be awarded at $15 per share for trades during the entire period of misstated earnings reports (2001-2004). It could wipe out the company, and net the lawyers tens or even hundreds of millions.

      That said, these lawsuits are notoriously hard to win, and it's much more likely that it'll either be settled for relatively small amount or that if they do go to court and win that they'll get significantly less.

      Think of it as a lottery ticket... With the kind of prices you can win people are willing to bet even when the chances are almost non-existant.

  115. Re:This story demonstrates why I'm leaving slashdo by sloanster · · Score: 1

    Cool beans!

    If all the lame anonymous cowards would stfu and leave for good, the quality of the threads would be greatly enhanced....

  116. Another Explanation by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Refers to an episode of "Ed Edd and Eddy" wherein Jimmy is fed to obesity to become a Sumo wrestler because they are famous & catered to (in Japan).

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  117. Re:I HATE REPUBLICANS AND I HATE DEMOCRATS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually my grandfather is the most corrupt man on earth, and i hope they impeach him.

    the problem was, this intern you see...and a orange dress

    and some cigars

    ah hell. forget it.

  118. Class actions are GPL. by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

    General Public Lawsuits. ;)

    --

    ---
    Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
    (I read with sigs off.)
  119. Poor Red Hat by rjdohnert · · Score: 1

    Oh well, thats the business world. If they are guilty of securities fraud they will fry, if they are innocent then they will be alright. Maybe everyone in the open source community should get together and help Red Hat during their time of need, after all they have done so much for us.

  120. Blaming the ambulance chasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About a month ago, Red Hat suddenly lost their CFO. Immediately thereafter, they pre-released earnings in order to cushion the blow. Now we find out two things: (1) the day before the CFO left, their auditor complained about their accounting practices, and (2) they recently received a request for information from the SEC. They didn't announce either of those facts during their extraordinary earnings release or at any time since then.

    Like it or not, those are both material facts. No, the accounting change isn't all that significant, and yes, most SEC audits turn out fine, but that is irrelevant. They did things to prop up their stock price, and didn't publicize all the news, limiting themselves to the better news. To the extent that they propped up their stock price by selectively releasing only positive informaion, they're in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

    Blaming the ambulance chasers for Red Hat's misbehavior is like blaming Janet Reno for Microsoft being held in violation of the Sherman Antitrust laws. Just like MS, Red Hat did this to themselves; the attorneys are just doing their jobs by trying to hold crooks accountable for their crimes.

  121. Get this straight. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    Actually there is no mistake, they are changing one accepted accounting practice for another. BFD. The greed head losers on wall street and some dipshit shyster lawyers are greedy. Nothing else going on here.

    I don't use RedHat and I don't endorse it but this is a bullshit law suit. I used Mandrake and Debian. So I can't be blamed for being pro RedHat, I am not.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  122. Not a problem by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

    If RedHat loses, the court will probably make them do what MicroSoft had to do for some of their antitrust settlements:

    Give out coupons for free software.

  123. Summed up best by Star Trek quote... by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 1

    (TaPao, high commissioner;planet Vulcan): "Kirk, Dis battle is to de death....Bring on the Learpa...."

  124. Dirty tactics... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
    1. Get your employees to buy shares in rival company.
    2. Wait for them to restate earnings and have their shares drop.
    3. Get those employees to launch class action.
    4. ...
    5. Profit

    So who's really behind this class action then??? Awfully convenient isn't it...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Dirty tactics... by tweek · · Score: 1

      Actually if you read the bottom of the press release, they still don't have a lead plantiff.

      This is more of a fishing expedition from the law firm. I bet if you go back a few googles, you can probably link this firm to anyone who has had to restate earnings.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  125. Actually this is one of the points of class action by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 1

    "class-action suits against a company for mickey-mouse bullshit is repulsive. If the company was actually doing something sleezily financially bad (eg enron) or dumping arsenic in the public water supply, then these class-action suits are deserved."

    Contrary to popular belief, class actions are not just to get bad guys like Erin Brocovich.

    One of the goals of the class action is in a way to punish mickey mouse bs. Class actions are designed in part to punish / deter cumulative small wrongdoing that amounts to a lot in the end. The courts recognize that nobody is going to sue to recover a 10 cent loss. They also recognize that there is a need for self-interested lawyers to do it on behalf of the many people that aren't going to bother. Otherwise, the wrongdoer doesn't get punished.

    (I'm not saying this class action is valid or not OR that redhat is a wrongdoer, only that class actions are in a lot of ways about what may seem to be small change to many people).

  126. Proposal to fix this situation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send these lawers to Iraq to defend Saddam....

  127. Unfair editorializing: by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 1

    This kind of thing has been pointed in the past but why not point it out again: I don't remember the anti-MS class action attorneys being labeled "am

  128. You speak the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is really depressing.

  129. Unfair editorializing: "ambulance chasers" by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This kind of biased editorializing that has been pointed in the past but why not point it out again: I don't remember the anti-MS California class action attorneys being labeled "ambulance chasers." What bothers me more though is just any old lawyer being called an ambulance chaser. Sharks, maybe. Ambulance-chasers, no. It reminds me of when people call liberals "terrorists" because they are anti-war. I don't care if you think they are bad because they are anti-war, but don't use some irrelevant word. Same thing goes here. Ambulance chasers are laywers that solicit clients soon after personal injury. Anyway, it doesn't look like the class has been certified. It could be this case goes nowhere and it doesn't even cost RH that much (relatively). (Don't mod me troll because I mentioned lawyers, liberals, and M$ in the same post :P)

    1. Re:Unfair editorializing: "ambulance chasers" by JianTian13 · · Score: 1

      Well then, let's be clear here:

      Yes, the editorializing is inconsistent. But since they appear to have changed the frontpage, not an issue now, is it? (Shall we now start arguing about journalistic integrity?)

      But they are ambulance chasers. Go read the article. They don't even have a lead plaintiff -- They just automatically filed the suit, and now they're saying "Look! We found a problem! Who wants to make money with us?"

      Sturgeon's Law, anyone, with a special clause for Lawyers? "99% of lawyers are shit." C'mon folks, you know how the joke goes: What do you call 10000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!

  130. Re:./ Bias -- Unheard of, no way, it doesn't happe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wake up. Being a dumbass is not cool. You should RTFA.

  131. Continued Astroturfing by ZeekWatson · · Score: 1

    Redhat continues the astroturf campaign!

  132. Ambulance chasers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would we do without ambulance chasers and the class action moneymakers they like to create? The only people that make any money are the lawyers. Why do we let this profiteering and muckraking continue? Can't we put a these lawyers over in Pakistan, Jakarta, Teheran, or somewhere in the Sudan? Not all of them, just the ones that file these incredibly worthless lawsuits?

  133. Hey by autopr0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    bite me AC. If you don't like it, mod me down. That's what the system is for.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Hey by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      So fucking killfile him and STFU.

  134. Well by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    The fact that their sales are X doesn't mean that they'll ever get better. The company could continue to be mismanaged. In which case, investors are fucked. Look at apple before jobs. They were losing 800 million a quarter, with plenty of sales.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  135. Red Hat vs The Ambulance Chasers by nathanh · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, that'd be a great name for a rock and roll band.

  136. Edwards for VP! by lseltzer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Look for this sort of lawsuit crap to rule American life even more when the lawyers/Democrats take over

  137. Typical Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HANG EM! HANG EM!!! HANG... huh? It's Redhat? Aw, shi... I thought it was Microsoft.

    THEY DID NOTHING WRONG! THEY DID NOTHING WRONG!

  138. Ambulance Chasers? Nice Slur. by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Nice slur.

    Would /. care if RedHat sold groceries, not Linux?

    Why shouldn't people sue if they believe RedHat dealt with them illegally? Misstating earnings -- deliberately or through error -- damages their investors.

    Or, is /. so populated by ideological weenies that it expects people to forego their own bests interests for the sake of a corporation that just happens to sell Linux?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  139. Cost of doing business by VojakSvejk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think if you go, for example, to finance.yahoo.com and poke around, you'll find that pretty much any time a publicly traded company restates earnings, class-action suits follow. They usually also fade away without much fanfare.

  140. Not really by rfreynol · · Score: 1

    If you restate earnings, it automaticly triggers a 10K review by the SEC. Just SOP for the regulators.

  141. T.J. Rodgers says to lawyers: "Make my day" by mangastudent · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For a view of pure laissez faire capitalism, red of tooth and claw, you can do no better than to read T.J. Rodgers, head of Cypress Semiconductor, who has dealt with these lawyer scams before. Money quote from his first experience:

    Unfortunately for the lawyers who attacked us, Cypress has one of the fighting 4 percent CEOs, not one of the 96 percent capitulating CEOs. On my way to work one morning, I traveled behind a beat-up pickup truck, which apparently belonged to an NRA member. The bumper sticker stated, "They will take my gun away from me when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

    Shortly after I arrived at work, the inevitable offer to settle came through. The plaintiffs indicated that they had the memo that would do us in, but that they were generously prepared to negotiate. I sent my response back through our lawyers: "The plaintiffs will get their first nickel out of me when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers." I refused even to meet with the class-action lawyers, whom I consider to be a low-life form, somewhere below pond scum.

    I recommend reading most anything on his home page. You won't agree with all of it, but he gets you to think, and you have to admire his spirit.

  142. Sue anyone for anything? by Kombat · · Score: 1

    Anyone can sue anyone else at any time

    *ahem*

    You accidentally left off "... in the USA."

    Some countries are a little more reasonable with their litigation laws.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  143. class-action lawsuit participation by djh101010 · · Score: 1

    ...giving some of Redhat's money to that sleaseball lawyer.

    Not exactly. how these suits work, is the sleaseball lawyer comes up with his target, and his scheme, and initiates the lawsuit. People then join the lawsuit, saying "Yes, I was 'harmed' also" (witness the CD settlement of late). If only two people would sign up, those two split the total that's left over after the lawyer gets his cut.

    Of course, the lawyers take their cut first. The settlement amount is fixed, though, and independant of the number of people joining the lawsuit. So, if it goes anywhere, Redhat will already have lost that bucket of money, the lawyer gets his cut regardless, and the number of people in the lawsuit would only change how much each person gets. Since it's spent money already (if it goes), might as well take a dip into the pool & send it right back in.

  144. Suck it up, zealots by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    When Red Hat goes tits up and get bought out lock, stock, barrel and intellectual property portfolio, and their new owner (SUN aka Microsoft) start leveraging those sweet Red Hat "defensive" patents against .com and .edus, don't - I repeat - do not start pissing and whining that you never saw it coming.

    Red Hat is a commercial entity. When - not if - they go to the Dark Side, they are going to wreck Linux. Best case, they only poison the chalice for other commercial vendors. Worst case, they pull the full SCO and start going after end users.

    You were warned, oh ye of boundless faith.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  145. The Microsoft logical alternative by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Vs. The Ambulance Chasers

    Posted by simoniker on Wednesday July 14, @09:21PM
    from the bad-dudes-vs.-dragon-ninja dept.

    ajs writes "On July 13, Microsoft announced that they would be re-stating their revenues for the last 3 years. This sent a shock-wave through their stock price, but early analysis seems to indicate that it's not that big a deal (the end-result is the same for a given contract, but it will be counted toward a different month). But then the really bad news hit. Ambulance chasers are taking this opportunity to punish Microsoft for reporting the change and the resulting drop in price. Microsoft is doing well, but can they weather major class action law suits without harming the business? How have other technology companies dealt with this sort of suit?"


    Hmmm, how would /.'ers react to that?
  146. what would you do? by gosand · · Score: 1
    I wish , just once.. a company I owned stock in would restate their books in a positive manner... ie: oops, we forgot to count that extra 200 million worth of revenue. That'd be a pleasant change.

    If you were the accountant, and you found an unreported 200 million, what would you do with it?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:what would you do? by JetJaguar · · Score: 1

      If you were the accountant, and you found an unreported 200 million, what would you do with it?

      Dear Sir,

      I am hoping that this message finds you well. I would think that you should be quite surprised that I am writing to you. But I found some information about you, and I believe that you are quite trust worthy. I am an accountant for a large software company and I recently found an unreported sum of $200 MILLION DOLLARS that no one in the company knows about. All I need to do is use your bank account to deposit the full sum, and I will cut you in for 5%. Please contact me soon so that we can begin the transaction....

      Damn! Maybe some of those emails really are legit after all! ;)

      --

      Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

  147. This same law firm is sueing Veritas too by laddhebert · · Score: 1
    This same law first file suit against Veritas on July 7 for similar reasons: www.glrslaw.com

    -L

    --
    Don't Panic.
  148. Bye Bye RH by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a feeding frenzy. The lawyers will eat RH for lunch.

    They really wont care if they destroy the company as long as they make a quick buck.

    The lawyers are 1/3 of the problem we have in society today..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  149. Title Change by sharkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So did the "Ambulance Chasers" send Taco a threatening letter about ajs calling them names?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Title Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think OSDN lawyers got pissed and they made Taco change it!

    2. Re:Title Change by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Perhaps the editors will clue us in on the impetus for changing the article text?

      Until they do, we can only assume the ambulance chasers threatened them.

  150. Re:It's a pretty minor restatement - READ THE ARTI by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is pretty sad that some greedy lawyers are looking to cash in on this small change in accounting. Coincidentally, I do not believe that either method of accounting for this revenue is incorrect and certainly not illegal. No wonder so many companies continue to maintain bad accounting practices, changing them for the better will get them sued.

  151. P/E ratio by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    "it's not clear to me how relevant their earnings per share are since they are still slightly positive."

    IANAFA (I am not a financial advisor) and this should not be considered advise.
    If you're buying stock in order to sell it to someone else at a higher price, you're going on the Greater Fool Theory (GFT). That's like trading baseball cards and is not IMHO a long term way to invest. Some people consider dividends the proper way to make money in stocks - you continually get benefit from your initial investment without having to sell it. The maximum rate of return you can hope to get through dividends is inversly proportional to the Price/Earning ratio (P/E). So it matters a LOT to some people. The PE does not indicate return, only possible return. It's still up to the company to offer a dividend.

    1. Re:P/E ratio by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, clearly the market is betting on a lot of growth in earnings per share in the future. That's why I was wondering why a slight change in a really small earnings per share number mattered so much. The P/E ratio should be ignored by these people, because it's not what they're trading on. Even if they were, the annual number seems more relevant yet it indicates a drop in earnings of less than 5%. So why drop 25%?

    2. Re:P/E ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The PE does not indicate return, only possible return.

      PE doesn't do that either. It indicates past returns. That's it.

    3. Re:P/E ratio by khallow · · Score: 1
      Ah, from reading some Red Hat news, I think I have a better idea of what's going on. First, this current restatement issue came up some time ago (apparently Red Hat didn't say when). So Red Hat missed an opportunity to fix it some time ago. Not encouraging.

      Second, they apparently are vaguely warning of future cuts in profit. That seems to be the big problem.

  152. Re:It's a pretty minor restatement - READ THE ARTI by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

    That is funny, the actual amounts anything has changed is like fractions of a percent. Redhat would have to have some pretty shoddy lawyers to lose this suit.

  153. Re:Ambulance Chasers? Nice Slur. by CritterNYC · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't people sue if they believe RedHat dealt with them illegally? Misstating earnings -- deliberately or through error -- damages their investors.

    Except in this case, it's just a matter of a change in when they're counting income from subscriptions. If you look at the restatement chart, nothing changes more than a couple cents here and there. In short, the change is a non-issue. The law firm is just being opportunistic and trying to make themselves some cash.

  154. WHERE'D THE OLD HEADLINE GO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    huh? huh?

  155. My letter to the lawyers by emtboy9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is what I sent to them, for curiosities sake. If I get a reply, I will post it as well:

    I would like more information regarding your action against Red Hat. As a share holder, I find it a bit confusing as to what prompted this action. The restatment makes little to no difference on their bottom line, as the did not misreport any erarnings. The restatment merely takes the number from one column and moves it to a different columns. The dip is stock price is due to the market's normal reacivity to announcements of this sort, from any company whatsoever.

    As a shareholder, and as someone who is qualified as part of this class, I find it odd, and a bit disconcerting at the speed at which this was filed. I dare say that no one actually came to you asking for a mass tort suit, but here it comes anyway. Sadly, your firm seems to me to be nothing more than opportunistic lawyers intent on making a large fee from the settlement of class action suits.

    Of course, I could be wrong, and I always stand waiting to change my opinions of people and situations, should an incontrovertable arguement be presented to me.

    Therefore, my challenge to you, is to convince me otherwise. I have read the documents you have provided regarding this case, but have yet to be convinced that I should join this venture. As I see it so far, the only people who really benefit from litigation of this nature are the lawyers themselves, with the many plaintiffs recieveing a paltry share of the settlement.

    So please, enlighten me. Convince me. Change my mind. That is my challenge to you. Are you up to it?

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
    1. Re:My letter to the lawyers by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if they will admit to under the table financing of this suit by M$? It wouldn't surprise anyone. Might even explain the speed of the suit.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  156. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by feelyoda · · Score: 1

    as I posted here:

    A good deal of the administration's actions are related to compromise to push through essential strategies for the war.

    The war resolution, the money to support it, measures like the PATRIOT act, etc., all required compromised for other agendas.

    Also, with measures like the perscription drug benefit, there was a tiny point of medical savings accounts. Go here to learn why MSA are the best choice.

    With NCLB, there was supposed to be a voucher scheme introduced, which was later taken out. Now that a majority of minorities are in favor of vouchers, I don't understand why they aren't being adopted more rapidly.

    That said, I am optimistic that Bush will do better in his second term, where he doesn't have much to lose. Given that Cheney won't be on the ticket in 2008, he can take measures which are normally anathema, such as social security reform, complete welfare reform (if that is even possible), and the measures removed from the health and education bills.

    Given Kerry would be worse, without a doubt (even with the lies he is telling to paint himself as a centrist), I see no reason to reject this optimism.

    Either way, I agree with the comment above: Bush understands the war, Kerry doesn't. Go here to hear more about that point.

    [note this comment was made on a libertarian website. If you want the jackboot of a Kerry welfare/technocratic state crushing your dreams, then he might not be worse for you]

    --

    Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
  157. Keep Bush where it belongs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in your pants!

  158. Re:Ambulance Chasers? Nice Slur. by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Even if a RedHat investor believed what you just said, why would that compel him not to sue if he believed he'd suffered a loss because he believes RedHat did something that is illegal, incompetent, or both.

    It's more important to protect the right to seek redress by bringing suit than it is to give some slack to a popular company.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  159. Re:Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    If bush understands the war why aren't we doing more to stop North Korea, Iran and China all countries that have nukes or are working on getting them? China and NK threaten to nuke us and next to nothing gets done.

    But damn it, we went after Iraq! The fact that doing so removed forces from the hunt from UBL ( you know, they guy behing 9/11) doesn't matter. And it did remove forces, mainly intel forces.

    Our borders are not secure BUT bush understands the war.

    Our country needs to spend more on the military (not on going ops more troops and equiptment) but we get a pill for old people plan that will cost 800 Billion to 1.1 Trillion. BUT bush understand the war.

    Our country needs the DOJ to go ofter terrorists, but they have been using the PA to go after strip clubs and drug dealers even though we were told it would be only used to go at terrorists. BUT bush understands the war.

    HINT, that pill plan for old people, parts of the farm bill and other programs ARE WELFARE. Just because he has a R by his name doesn't change the fact.

    I don't want my kids, grand kids and great grand kids to have to pay debts that we ran up because we are too gready to cut spending. Check the budget and look how much NON DEFENSE spending has grown under bush and you will find that it has grown a lot more than DEF spending has.

  160. Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers!

  161. what bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how could this law firm do all the research they needed to do in a day -

    that just doesn't smell right.

    all it is is a change in accounting methods and not anything else - it will have to get approved by the SEC but they did not do anything sleasy.

    those lawyers are just greedy and are just now doing the research that they should of done before hand but they wanted to be the first ones to file so they can get a percentage if they can trick redhat into settling.

    fedora rocks - keep up the good work redhat!!

  162. Slashdot self-censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone tell me why the article title and the submission's wording has been changed overnight? It definitely said ambulance chasers, not "opportunistic lawyers".

    Is someone afraid of a C&D letter over at /.?

  163. The choice is far from obvious... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Of course they decided to restructure their product line. Revenue from the retail products didn't make a dent in their operating costs, whereas enterprise sales have quadrupled in 4 years.

    Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? 20% of the products make up 80% of the profits? It varies a little but it generally recognized that you have a few or no loss leaders, a few highly profitable products, while the most volume is not really bringing in much - it is simply there.

    Various business leaders over the years have looked at that and said "We should just cut those, they don't bring in any profits" only to fail to realize what that volume meant for economics of scale, brand name, crowd catcher and entry points for profitable sales.

    RHL was that kind of product. Perhaps Red Hat is one of the few exceptions to this rule, but I doubt it. Remember that there are many servers out there that do not need enterprise support - yet. Perhaps RHL support would have been sufficient, and as their needs grow, more critical services transfer to Linux they would move to RHEL.

    On the short-term, it will not hurt their enterprise sales. Those who needed it yesterday, still do. But in a longer perspective, I would be very concerned about Red Hat's economical future. Perhaps they can live off Windows converts, having a strong name. But they've certainly left a void others are more than happy to fill...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  164. trial lawyers.. by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    now we know how ralph nader and jon edwards amde their millions.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  165. What happened to the "Ambulance Chasers"? by cybermancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The title of this article was "Red Hat vs. The Ambulance Chasers" yesterday, now it is "Red Hat vs. The Lawyers". Since when did /. start worrying about being politically correct. Many of these comments are about the title containing Ambulance Chasers, now they seem irrelevant.

    --
    "Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
  166. This is Accounting 101 folks by LorenzoV · · Score: 1

    Alas, any first year accounting student would never have let RedHat perform the deception that it did by recognizing revenue all at once for a service to be delivered over time. It is a fundamental principle of accounting, demanded by the FASB, and accepted by any gorilla who practices accounting. That said, I am not an accountant. I have taken only one semester of accounting plus done a little independent study.

    It is understandable why RedHat's CFO got sacked. Frankly, I'm not sure why he's not under indictment for fraud. Worse, were it mine to do, I'd charge the entire board of directors and officers for fraud.

    That it was not a lot of money, that it only spreads the revenue recognition across some several months is the whole, the entirety, of the principle of accrual accounting. Any business must do it under similar circumstances.

    I applaud their accountants [who was that again?] for insisting on the restatement.

    I have used RedHat's products in the past. I might use Fedora one of these days. I think they do a good thing. They absolutely, positively have to tighten up their accounting, or they will almost certainly go bust.

  167. moderators are fucking cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you moderators are fucking cowards, what's this "overrated" bullshit?

  168. Service... Costs... Increase / Revenue by BenRussoUSA · · Score: 1
    ...Redhat is a service company and their costs will increase with revenue...

    Not linearly. Most of what RedHat sells as a "service" is just access to an online automatic updates site. It isn't like RedHat is billing by the hour. RedHat Enterprise Linux is still released under the GPL, you just can't get the binary updates packages without paying to access the "RedHat Updates" internet server. You can still access the source code packages on public FTP sites. What people are paying for is the phone support and the access to the system software management system (and some other things that aren't that big of a deal yet).

    So as the number of "subscribers" increases their bandwidth costs increase (not linearly either because many customers with multiple systems go through a caching proxy server), their customer support calls increase (but not linearly either because corporate customers don't call 10 times for one problem that affects 10 subscribed servers). Also, RedHat's central expense is the corporate sales, marketing, R&D and engineering/IT staff, and that is already paid for (at least until they get MUCH MUCH bigger). So they will be able to pile on the gravy (profit margin) as they grow. So far they have been reinvesting a large portion of their profits, I know that they have opened many branch offices (one right down the street from me) for their sales/consultants/training staff. So their operating margin is probably much larger than it looks at first glance.

  169. Yes, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stock went down because people are irrational. That made it go up too much. Then down too much. It's nice that you can sue Red Hat for problems caused by stupid investors (probably stupid greedy investors but I hate to generalize) like yourself.

  170. a question by milliyear · · Score: 1

    entirely off topic, and this is not a troll. It's a legitimate question.

    What's wrong or 'unhealthy' with high-fructose corn syrup? I hadn't heard anything bad about it. Am I missing something? Educate me!

  171. Re:It will only get worse... by the+argonaut · · Score: 1

    . . .then its a little in favor of Bush because he does have expirence, even if it isn't very good expirence. Being President through 9/11 has to count for something.

    No, it doesn't count "if it isn't very good EXPERIENCE". Would you want me to rebuild your car engine if I told you that I failed auto shop? At least I took auto shop, and that has to count for something.

    -------------

    President of the Internet.

    --
    fuck you.
  172. Lawsuits like this are common by ncstockguy · · Score: 1

    Opportunistic lawyers just going for bucks from the company, hoping for a settlement or that they can turn up something negative. If we required the Lawyers to pay a company's legal damages when no merit to their case is found, there would be a lot fewer of these.
    Anyway these are so common, most companies have legal contingencies built into their expense budgets. A shame. But Red Hat will most likely come out smelling like a rose. Actually created a good buying opportunity for anyone interested in their stock, IMHO.

    1. Re:Lawsuits like this are common by ncstockguy · · Score: 1

      As this chart shows, Red Hat stock is now consolidating. When it clearly begins to move up on slightly higher volume, you'll know the big institutional companies are buying back in big time.
      I expect that will happen as soon as next week. Anyone at all familiar with Red Hat knows it has top notch management and this is just a temporary sideshow.
      http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.w eb?c=rhat,u u[w,a]daclyiay[db][pb50!b200!f][vc60][iLa12,26,9!L g]&pref=G

  173. off topic completly... by kesuki · · Score: 1

    hey as of the 8th the seo challenge has been over, maybe it's time to think of a new url for /. ;) give me more pretty widgets to click when i'm bored ^^;;
    then again, i've had the same booring url for years now, but It's important for the true values of freedom that this nation was founded on to be understood, especially when none of those values are being upheld by our current elected officials...

  174. Re:It's a pretty minor restatement - READ THE ARTI by Meski · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the lawyers are suing not because of the change, but the effects of the change (the share price went down)

  175. Re:It will only get worse... by Shivantrill · · Score: 1
    Correction...

    He didn't read it, it was read to him.

    --
    Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!