Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Ellison Must Donate $100M to Charity
PokeyPenguin writes "As part of a settlement for insider trading allegations, a California judge has ordered that Larry Ellison donate $100 million to charity. CNet reports, 'The charity payments are an unusual way to settle such a case. Typically, settlement payments would go directly to the company, in this case Oracle. "But with Mr. Ellison owning a quarter of Oracle's stock, much of such a direct payment, in effect, would have gone to him."'"
September 12 was, erm, over six weeks ago--this news about the ending of the so-called "derivative law suits" was dealt with by Java Developer's Journal (and tens of dozens of other major technology publications) long ago. [from the article] "Unusual Settlement Arrangement Would End Derivative Lawsuits Once and For All, and Avoid a Trial"
Won't he get a tax break therefore saving money in the long run?
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
It's called "Feed the Anyds." Seriously though, I'm hungry!
http://qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=667
Sure, he'll get a tax break, but he's only gonna get a little fraction of that back, and undoubtedly the judge in the case was aware of this. He'll still lose tens of millions of dollars/
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Representatives from Ellison's selected charity - the little-known 'Human Fund' - were unavailable for comment.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
Obviously i am no business genius but why does the payment be in a form that will add to the stock value? Can't the judge order Ellison to write out checks to the ones who suffered? :(
Also, the timestamp on the news.com.com site shows that this news is about 2 weeks old. Isn't that like a lifetime in the Internet age or is this a dupe post
so a quarter of the total parties damaged by Ellison's insider trading was.... Ellison. ohhh
------
[insert funny
So the settlement was for 0.6% of his personal worth? Or bearly equivalent to a speeding ticket to a guy on $30,000 and he gets 5 years to pay it and no criminal record?
That's justice right there.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Why not just exclude his stock from the distribution of the settlement. That way the people he screwed could still benefit from this settlement.
Mr. Ellison's favorite charity: LINUX !!!!!
Larry Ellison's new business plan:
1) Change Oracle's status to "Charity"
2) Donate $100B to the Oracle Charity Fund
3) Change Oracle's status back to "For Profit Corporation"
4) Profit!!!
There's something wrong up there though.... what could it be ??????
Me Ellison recently announced a $400M Dividend to be paid to shareholders
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Ellison won't get a tax break. Although the payment is being made to a charity, it is not a charitable contribution. He is receiving legal consideration for the payment -- i.e., he is settling and discharing a debt. It would similar to the situation where you bought a used car from the charity, and paid them money in exchange. Your payment would not be a charitable contribution
More precisely, the charity is a third party beneficiary of a contract between the plaintiff(s) and Ellison to settle the case. It would be more like a case where "Seller" sells a car to you but, feeling charitable, writes the contract so you pay the money to the charity. In that case, if anyone got a deduction it would be "Seller" and not you.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
To - you have either done nothing wrong, and you are free, or you have done something wrong and have to pay for it. Maybe I'm just naiive, but how can it be "nothing wrong" and paying back money?
I hear most of it is going to Ellison's own Diplomas are for losers campaign.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
... Larry Ellison should have to put the $100M into a non-profit foundation that pays developers to improve PostgreSQL. Properly managed, that kind of money would easily fund a team of 50 developers for decades.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Here is a suggestion: the PosgreSQL project.
The judgement doesn't make sense to me.
Typically, if someone does something bad to someone, the person doing the bad has to compensate the harmed person.
So if Ellison did something bad to the shareholders, he should pay the shareholders.
The fact that Ellison is a shareholder too doesn't matter -- all it means is, in the big scheme of things Ellison did something bad to the minority shareholders.
So Ellison could just as easily compensate only the minority shareholders -- but only as much as he hurt them.
It doesn't make sense for the judge to say, "Oh my! This case is so complex, let's just have Larry flush some money down the toilet or give it to charity, and we'll call it even."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Not the same thing at all, though it doesn't stop the likes of Bill Gates mixing up the two. Seriously though if Ellison has to stump up the cash, he should strategically give it to open source projects where it would be the most benefit to Oracle.
but I think he won more than 100 million $ doing this insider trade. Small guys which steal 2 TVS get prison, he stole over 100 million and gets nothing.
1.) Only $100 million?
That's because no California court has ever awarded punitive damages in a derivative suit. Derivative suits, like this one, are about equity - not punishment.
2.) No criminal record?
Derivative suits are civil, not criminal.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Donate that $100 million to the Ubuntu folks.
No one on earth benefits from this lawsuit except the sharks. In the long run, Ellison would have donated the money to someone anyway. He can't and won't spend it all, and will just decrease his future donations by the same amount he was forced to donate.
The stockholders do not benefit, the charities do not benefit, Ellison does not benefit...
What a waste. The problem is that law schools are deliberately over-supplying the market with lawyers (we have several times as many as other nations, per capita). This results in not enough legitimate suits to go around. Stupid suits are the obvious result.
Perhaps we should sue the law schools for creating a "nuisance"...
He admits nothing, but other people believe he did something wrong. As Gerald Ford said when he granted Nixon's pardon: "I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury", and "To procrastinate, to agonize, and to wait for a more favorable turn of events that may never come or more compelling external pressures that may as well be wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts"
.
For someone like Ellison, paying $100 million is nothing compared to waiting years for a trial, even if he were considered "not guilty" in the end.
It has to be money and has to goto charity orginizations, not all non-profit are charity. In addition the board of directors of Oracle has to approve the charity and it will be given in Oracle's name not ellson.
From the article: "This provision makes an excellent settlement even better," Joseph Tabacco, the attorney who brought the case, said in a statement. Wow, who would have guessed it, a lawyer is happy to get $22 million!?
We live in a society of law, and the law is: he who has, gets.
Court wants Ellison to pay 100m to other Oracle shareholders.
Problem : Ellison owns 25% of Oracle.
Solution : Order him to pay 133m to Oracle.
This whole charity thing does not make sense.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Am I the only one to note that the legal fees in this affair amount to $22 million ? o.O Twenty-two million dollars ??? Ugh ..
We should all turn to becoming lawyers ..
I'd like to have this problem.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
L.E. owns 25% of a company; this means that 25% of every payment to the company will therefore, in effect, go to L.E. The other 75% of the company's owners are supposed to receive $100m a penalty for wrongdoing by L.E. How much money must L.E. pay to the company so that the other 75% of the owners receive their $100m?
Apparently, the court found this little problem too hard to solve.
As a student in the school of life (and a great follower of the BOFH) I follow the religion called "Order of the Shiny Aura" which requires you to give up all your worldly possessions to achieve the Shiny Aura of happiness! All my wages are directly sent to the church each month.
:)
Its a good thing i founded that religion myself 2 weeks ago. Its great for a slushfund, perfect for taxes and i can always claim religious days off whenever im on a bender from drinkies with suppliers
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
One for the rich, one for the poor. Steal an TV, and you get locked up. Steal millions of dollars, and you get a fine. Kill some bozo, and you get executed. Kill a million bozos with Apache helicopters and white phosphorus, and you get an unfavourable poll rating.
It's one rule for the rich, and one rule for the poor.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
For a second I thought they meant Harlan Ellison, and I thought, "wow, $100 mil, what did the old curmudgeon say this time?!"
Math is hard.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
All true - but kind of funny that Larry pulls out his change purse and Martha wears the shackles. Is it just me, or do other people think Larry might actually have a man purse?
That's what, licenses for a cluster of 2 machines with 4 CPUs each?
sic transit gloria mundi
we all know the reason its on the front page of /. is becouse this ruling is simply not Fair
;/
however you look at this its wrong
I Predict A Riot
For karma's sake
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
All true - but kind of funny that Larry pulls out his change purse and Martha wears the shackles. Is it just me, or do other people think Larry might actually have a man purse?
Not that I'm defending Larry, but Martha wore the shackles for lying to the Feds, not the insider trading. I'm sure if she hadn't been so arrogant and just 'fessed up front, she would have received similar treatment.
And now none of it will go to the affected parties.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Where is the benefit of locking up someone like Ellison?
Justice? To deter other white collar criminals? Maybe just to inflict a true punishment to pay him back for robbing a huge number of shareholders with his insider scams, the majority of those people being those who would have substantial repurcussions to their standard of living from losing the money.
White collar crime costs us all a staggering amount of money, is underreported, and is often erratically prosecuted because of the difficulty in trying complicated financial transactions, the sophistication of the criminals, and the money at the plaintiffs disposal to fight cases. When someone IS caught, there has to be a substantial deterrent sentence. Jail time at the very least.
I mean, the situation is ludicrous. If a small time burglar had robbed each stockholder of money, say a thousand of them, there is no way he would walk away with a fine. Put him in a suit and rob them electronically and the situation is somehow different.
Ellison's net worth is about 13.7 billion dollars. 13,700 million, under the American billion system. If you had $13,700 in the bank, robbed a couple of thousand people, and recieved a hundred buck fine, would you be suitably punished?
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Ellison's lawyers filed an appeal under the 8th Amendment when it was revealed that Ellison would have to give the $100m to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
The benefit could be that lots of other productive people would not have their money stolen by him, and maybe be able to use it to found new businesses, drive technology or retire in comfort after a lifetime of hard work.
Why wouldn't it be fair that he pay Oracle instead of charity? He would only be paying himself to the same extent that he originally stole from himself. This seems to diminish both his original crime and his subsequent punishment by the same amount. This doesn't seem fair to Oracle shareholders other than Mr. Ellison who were victims of the original crime but do not benefit from the resolution.
I don't see how having Mr. Ellison sit in some cozy Hilton with a fence is in any way justice to those who have been wronged. He didn't "rob" anyone. He sold some stock he knew would probably drop. I somehow think that any one of us faced with a similar situation would probably do exactly the same thing. He didn't cause the stock to drop, the earnings shortfall did that. Sounds like a suitable punishment to me (if indeed it could actually be called a crime).
Let me get this straight, you truly believe that having Joe Taxpayer (including many shareholders) pay to keep Ellison at the crossbar motel sounds like justice?
Take it from the stockholders, and give it to a charity.
Anyone know the fianancials of the charity ?
maybe the charity is larry ellisons cousin ?
My first thought was OMG What have you done now Harlan.
Ohh, it's that Oracle guy. Good.
Also, may I suggest contibutions in part goto "The Help MrCopilot keep the Lights on Fund" PayPal Accepted.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Martha is investiated for "insider trading" and it's judged she did ZNOT do it. But because she lied to a Federal Officer she is now convicted felon and served 6 months in jail. The court here finds Larry is guilty of "insider teading" and he apparently settles w/o a Felony conviction and with no jail time. Doesn't make any sense to me.
The logic here is strange and the share holders defrauded by the judge. If the goal is to make ellison 100 million poorer then this is simple:
x-0.25*x = 100 million
x = 133 million
So ellison should pay 133 million, he'll get 25% back in the book value of his stocks, and on paper be out 100 million.
On the otherhand if the idea is that oracle was defrauded 100 million, well then it's simple. He should give 100 million to oracle, regardless of his percent ownership since any injury he caused oracle came out of his pocket book too!.
Stupid decision.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
No, of course not. He should pay. And it certainly shouldn't be a cozy "Hilton" prison. These financial crimes cause enormous harm to vast numbers of people.
I personally donate a healthy amount to charities, but to rule that someone must pay out to a charity just doesn't seem right to me. In my opinion a portion of the money to be paid out should have firstly gone to covering the state's costs for the trial (why should we pay for this idiot's mistake).
I honestly dont know what a good solution for disbursement of the money is here (and yes I know charity is great), but it just doesn't seem right to me to force someone to donate.
And yes I know that the charity receivers probably dont give a damn where the money is coming from as long it helps, but if I am not mistaken this guy has the choice of what charities to donate to. Wouldn't it be spiteful of him to donate it to a bunk charity, something like Save the Ants... (It could be a real charity, but one that in 99% of peoples opinion is not deserving...)
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
She was innocent of insider trading - at least the charges were dropped - but that didn't give her the right to claim it. You see, by denying it, she was revealing information that affected the price of her company's stock, and she didn't go through the right channels to do it, which is a crime.
Not that I'm defending Larry, but Martha wore the shackles for lying to the Feds, not the insider trading. I'm sure if she hadn't been so arrogant and just 'fessed up front, she would have received similar treatment.
Well, maybe. Wasn't she also on the board of the SEC at the time? That, to me, ups the ante somewhat in that she should be held to a higher standard. I don't know that it would be legal to do that, though... but at least ethically it seems to make sense.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Consider that the 25% that he owns was also affected by his own insider trading and dropped in value, effectively negating the "increase" you're concerned about.
"Insider trading shouldn't be illegal.
I own corporations and the information I receive daily is very involved. There is nothing, though, that a stockholder couldn't learn by studying the market."
Based upon your statements, I don't think you quite understand what insider trading is. Insider trading should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. You are grossly misinformed about how much information is available to investors by "studying the market."
A free market works on the idea that everyone has ready access to the same information. In reality, this is not the case, and insider trading laws fix this to keep the playing field level.
There are lots of corporate executives and analysts that have access and insight to the goings-on of public companies well before the rest of the investing public. To buy or sell stock in the stock market with that knowledge is committing an act of fraud because the average investing public has no way whatsoever to access this information until there is a press release or quarterly report.
On a more concrete level, I do quite a bit of consulting work for various public companies and the heads of those companies. With the info that I'm given to do my assignments, I'm pretty much banned for life from buying the stocks of certain companies because I know too much ahead of time. I cannot, with a straight face, buy or sell certain stocks because the hypothetical seller or buyer with whom I make the trade is not aware of all the facts as I am. It would be just as crooked as knowingly selling someone a defective car and hiding the fact that you know it's broken.
"Just like blackmail laws, insider trading laws are attempting to stifle free expression."
You are not expressing anything when you're cheating people out of their money.
"I hate how people support the court here. I don't invest in stocks because I know it
is a scam. Why would you?"
Because I know better.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
It's not a scam, it's gambling. Think of insider trading as point shaving, or - better yet - as a dealer tell. Would a casino let the dealer of blackjack play a hand it his own table? Certainly he wouldn't win every time, but it would increase his advantage. Now, make it a blackjack tourney, where the dealer is playing to amass a stake against other (non-dealer) players. He's still not guaranteed to win, but he will have an unfair advantage.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
In addition the board of directors of Oracle has to approve the charity and it will be given in Oracle's name not ellson.
The fact that the board is approving it doesn't much matter. My understanding is that these days, boards are stacked with CEOs or senior managment from other companies. These are the same people that keep elevating CEO salaries and other perks in order to stay "competitive". Each time this happens, they're essentially giving themselves a raise. They aren't looking out for shareholders, other than to do what is minimally necessary to avoid any lawsuits.
"There is nothing, though, that a stockholder couldn't learn by studying the market."
Um, how can I put this delicately?
Insider trading is based on the premise that insiders have access to information that stockholders CAN'T learn by studying the market. And furthermore, it's a valid premise.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
How much did Americans pay to bring Ellison to justice? How are we getting compensated for that? Ellison has $100M to pay, and billions more to spend. Why do these fines have to cost Americans so much money?
--
make install -not war
I don't see how having Mr. Ellison sit in some cozy Hilton with a fence is in any way justice to those who have been wronged.
It's one of the few things he would actually identify as punishment. And don't say he committed no crime - insider trading eats away at the whole point of the stockmarket. He knew there would be an earnings shortfall. He knew that everyone owning stocks have to take the rough with the smooth. He swindled to avoid playing by the rules of the game. The victims are the people who bought the stocks off them - he sold them something he knew would be valueless. If a shop trader sold you a TV he knew wouldn't work, would you say 'tough luck' then?
Let me get this straight, you truly believe that having Joe Taxpayer (including many shareholders) pay to keep Ellison at the crossbar motel sounds like justice?
You think having some burglar sit in a jail for stealing a couple hundred dollars worth of goods is any differt? You'd put a price on justice? Having Larry Ellison sit behind bars may seem like a waste of money, but how many other inside traders are going to look at him and back off?
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
His total 'fine' is $122m with $22m going to a band of lawyers who got together to sue him. I bet that 'charity' bit of the decision is really bugging them
It's even simpler. Raise the fine to $133m. Then $100m will go to the shareholders excluding Larry.
I don't see how having Mr. Ellison sit in some cozy Hilton with a fence is in any way justice to those who have been wronged.
Then don't put him in a Hilton.
He didn't "rob" anyone. He sold some stock he knew would probably drop.
Yes, so he sold something he knew to be worth less in value than everyone else thought, and didn't tell anyone. With the rules on reporting such things, it is fraud. He claimed a value he knew to be false, then tricked people into buying it by withholding information from them.
Let me get this straight, you truly believe that having Joe Taxpayer (including many shareholders) pay to keep Ellison at the crossbar motel sounds like justice?
Sure. Of course, the $100,000,000 fine could be paid to the government to offset those high prices at the Hilton they are putting him up at.
Learn to love Alaska
just to be fair
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
A free market works on the idea that everyone has ready access to the same information. In reality, this is not the case, and insider trading laws fix this to keep the playing field level.
No, a free market works with people making informed decisions and no one disclosing their information.
To buy or sell stock in the stock market with that knowledge is committing an act of fraud because the average investing public has no way whatsoever to access this information until there is a press release or quarterly report.
So? Why anyone would put capital into a business that they control 0.001% of is beyond me.
It would be just as crooked as knowingly selling someone a defective car and hiding the fact that you know it's broken.
Stocks should be sold "as-is" just like cars. If you need guarantees, make a contract.
Because I know better.
You use the force of government to make people talk.
Example:
I had $10,000. I could have:
1. bought 0.001% of some company. I'd make $0 profit annually, only earning when I sell the shares. The other 1M owners might know more or less than me.
2. bought 33% of a new business. I'd likely make 20% profits annually and have real control.
3. I'd loan the company from point 1 the money at 8%.
Nowhere is disclosure needed. People who buy 0.001% shares deserve the beatings they get.
I own corporations and the information I receive daily is very involved. There is nothing, though, that a stockholder couldn't learn by studying the market.
A stockholder can't know every sales contract and every expense, so they rely on quarterly reports and such. Projections are made. If the projections are missed or beat makes a difference to the stock price. The people compiling the quarterly reports will know trade secret information until it is publicly available, at which time all the stockholders will know. Basing trade information off information that isn't publicaly available (and is valuable for precisely that reason) is insider trading. And it is based off information that the stockholders can't know before the public release.
Learn to love Alaska
Could be quite a kick-start for the One Laptop Per Child campaign.
:v)
Vik
Why is this moderated as Funny?
;)
You've not had the joy of licensing Oracle Enterprise Edition, have you? Trust me, the mod is fair.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Then don't put him in a Hilton.
But that's where he'll end up, like it or not, just like Martha Stewart. Are you going to tell me that they deserve to be in a maximum security prison with violent criminals? Of course not, they don't even belong in prison. It's just stupid.
Sure. Of course, the $100,000,000 fine could be paid to the government to offset those high prices at the Hilton they are putting him up at. That is neither fair nor wise.
"No, a free market works with people making informed decisions and no one disclosing their information."
That's a contradictory statement. If no one discloses their information, then no one is making an informed decision. It just seems like your statement is trying to justify lying by omission.
"So? Why anyone would put capital into a business that they control 0.001% of is beyond me."
No one that is buying stock on the stock marketing is buying control and is aware that they are not buying control. People buy stock for either the dividends or capital appreciation. Moreover, it is very disturbing that your "So?" comment was in response to my statement that buying or selling stock on the open market with insider knowledge would amount to fraud. Your lack of understanding as to why people invest in stocks does not justify committing fraud.
"Stocks should be sold "as-is" just like cars. If you need guarantees, make a contract."
Sorry, no one has the right in the first place to knowingly defraud anyone. Again, all I'm reading from you is more BS to justify cheating and dishonesty.
"You use the force of government to make people talk."
The sad fact of the matter is that there are some dishonest people out there...ie Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers. The stock market was a hellhole before the 1929 crash and formation of the SEC shortly thereafter in 1934. The proper and relatively uniform disclosure of information has created a level of confidence in the market that has allowed trillions of additional dollars to be invested in new businesses over the years and has allowed more citizens to take part in the wealth of this nation.
"Example:
I had $10,000. I could have:
1. bought 0.001% of some company. I'd make $0 profit annually, only earning when I sell the shares. The other 1M owners might know more or less than me.
2. bought 33% of a new business. I'd likely make 20% profits annually and have real control.
3. I'd loan the company from point 1 the money at 8%.
Nowhere is disclosure needed. People who buy 0.001% shares deserve the beatings they get."
1. You make profit when you sell the shares. If it is a good company, it will make it worth your time to hold onto it for a little while before selling. Or you can invest in a company that pays annual dividends...there are thousands of choices. The other 1M owners will have access to the *exact* same information as you in the case of a public company and that equal level of knowledge is what's important. Everything you know about a public company is regurgitated from three sources: a) SEC filings b) company press releases c) analyst earnings estimates.
2. 33% is a minority interest. You need 51% or 67% to control a company, depending up the state of incorporation. You will have no control whatsoever...at most a 1/3 directorship position, but that is still a minority interest. You'll *expect* 20% profits annually but in the case of a new business you'll likely not see any returns for a few years. That, and most new businesses fail...but that's why you would expect a high rate of return in the first place.
3. Practically speaking, new businesses need a lot more than $10,000 and will settle on one lender (ie a bank) that can loan out the entire amount. Now maybe someone's sister-in-law's cousin's neighbor's friend of a friend starting a small home business will take your $10,000, but that's a helluva lotta risk for just 8%.
Disclosure is needed in all of the above cases. No rational person is going to invest in anything without knowing what they're getting into.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
First, the stock wasn't valueless afterward, nor is it now. Down perhaps but not worthless.
Second, The burglar sitting in jail isn't likely to have 100M to donate to charity as a deterrent. Most likely all that that person has is time to take away. If you could somehow force them to make monetary restitution + an additional penalty fee then yes I would prefer that. Justice does have a price... Something about "Eye for an eye...", no not literaly, it's what our justice system was modeled after.
Pay yes, jailtime no. I don't have knowledge of the case facts other than he knew the hit was coming and sold. I looked at the stock values... In 2001 the stock took a 10$ hit (~30%), it would've happened anyway regardless of him selling or not.
Coming Soon: the Larry Ellison Fund for Needy CEOs
..take away his boat and give it to Hasso Plattner:-)
I don't see any prosecutors knocking at his door.
Instead we got a pointless civil suit which benefits no one except the lawyers.
Are you going to tell me that they deserve to be in a maximum security prison with violent criminals?
Yes. If you commit a crime, you should go to prison. I object to having prisons known for anal sex, and I object to prisoners being given special treatment based on being rich.
Of course not, they don't even belong in prison.
Ah right. So they break the law in order to steal/defraud money, but punishing them is out of the question. We save prisons for those evil people that grow pot in their backyard for personal use.
That is neither fair nor wise.
Could you explain to me how it is unfair to fine those that have the means to pay for the costs of their trial and incarceration? Why wouldn't you want them to pay for the costs necessary?
Learn to love Alaska
Yes. If you commit a crime, you should go to prison. I object to having prisons known for anal sex, and I object to prisoners being given special treatment based on being rich.
So perhaps speeders should go to prison? Jaywalkers? No matter what the crime we should send them all to Oz?
Ah right. So they break the law in order to steal/defraud money, but punishing them is out of the question. We save prisons for those evil people that grow pot in their backyard for personal use.
Those people don't belong in prison either but according to your view since they are criminals they belong in a maximum security prison. What? A hundred million dollar fine isn't punishment? Then neither is the 100$ speeding ticket.
Could you explain to me how it is unfair to fine those that have the means to pay for the costs of their trial and incarceration? Why wouldn't you want them to pay for the costs necessary?
Oh I think it would be quite fair for criminals to pay for their imprisonment when their crime necessitates imprisonment.
Question: What will you do with those who cannot or simply won't pay? Death penalty perhaps?
I was merely saying that L.E.'s crime and many other crimes do not warrent jail time. It's just stupid and the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
What if the charity or charities that benifit from this settlement are objectionable to the stockholders who were harmed by Ellison's actions? After all one could reasonably argue that this money came out of their pockets.
For example, give the money to Handgun Control Inc. and you anger one group of people. Give it to the NRA and you upset the opposing group. Give to Planned Parenthood or NOW and the prolife crowd objects. Give to Operation Save America and the abortion rights advocates will scream bloody murder. The point is there are plenty of charities with agendas that fall into one political affiliation or the other.
Personally I think this settlement is flawed as it does nothing to compensate those actually harmed by Ellison's actions, and it can easily add insult to injury unless the money goes to the most politically benign charities possible.
That's ideal, I agree, but the trouble is what's bad for Microsoft is good for Oracle. But Oracle has taken Microsoft head-on in many markets, so what might hurt Microsoft the most (an OpenExchange-like project, say) would also hurt Oracle (say, CorporateTime). So, sure they could give it to some linux projects, but nothing that would help PostgreSQL too much. :) So the damage they could inflict on Microsoft in the OS/applications area might be minimal. But the OASIS group should leave a voicemail.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)