Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

United Tech Bids $2.6B for Diebold

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-much-does-an-election-cost dept.

zhang1983 writes "United Technologies, parent company of jet engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, Otis elevator and Sikorsky Aircraft, said it made the unsolicited offer to Diebold for $2.63 billion on Friday after trying to negotiate a deal for two years. United Technologies said the company announced the offer Sunday night because executives believe their offer is "so compelling we thought shareholders should know about it.""

13 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah but... by mccalli · · Score: 4, Funny

    When the shareholders come to vote on it, somehow the results won't be quite as expected...

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Yeah but... by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Should we accept the buyout offer by United Tech?

      24% --- In favor
      25% --- Against
      51% --- Republican

      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    2. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I often wonder why people think it will ONLY be used to unfairly benefit Republicans. It's only a matter of time before it becomes an "equal opportunity offender". Problem is, lack of transparency means we will always think the victory was stolen by whoever "wins", but we won't know a damn thing. Does it mean anything to win if the calculation was driven by an easily manipulated database?

    3. Re:Yeah but... by infonography · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Democrats used to be completely corrupt, racist, and complete liars. Look up Tammany hall Republicans used to be progressive eco-friendly and moral see Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt. Don't tie yourself to a party, they won't be who you knew when you were growing up. Consider Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Karl Rove, and Bill Frist. Do you really want leave these guys alone with your kids or even know where you live let alone running the country???? 30 years from now it will likely change. It's the way the world works.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  2. Confusion by captaindirtnap · · Score: 5, Informative

    2-3 Billion$ ATM business... 100 Million$ Election system business... Why do people think Diebold is primarily election systems-based?

  3. Re:Sikorsky Aircraft? by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Technologies); United Tech (Sikorsky's parent) is based in Hartford, CT

    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  4. Profit! by gnurfed · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Buy Diebold
    2. Elect neo-conservatives
    3. Get the US into more wars
    4. Sell lots of military hardware
    5. Profit!
    (no ????-step this time)
  5. Re:It's probably not about Premier Elections Syste by GWLlosa · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is entirely correct. Diebold is one of the key players in the ATM business, as well as being a major provider of banking security equipment. To clarify (since this is slashdot) banking security here refers to safes, cameras, locks, and bulletproof teller windows, not encrypted data on the server or anything. They've also made a significant effort to streamline banking processes in recent times; they've got a fair amount of technology relating to scanning and transmitting financial documents, so as to preclude the need to send the physical document itself.

    Elections, despite the notoriety it has caused, is more or less a 'side' business for Diebold, which was probably the result of someone high-up watching the Gore VS Bush Florida recount debacle and saying to himself, "Now THAT [election devices] looks like a growth market right there..." As far as I know, the 'Diebold Election Systems' branch was simply bought and bolted on to the company.

  6. Re:Sikorsky Aircraft? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, I think despite Constantine objection that the company is actually based in Hartford, CT - this is really the heart of the matter. If you wouldn't trust the machines if they were delivered by a Russian company, then you shouldn't trust them at all. Even if Diebold were a company of excellent reputation, impartial and known to deliver the best quality - how could you be sure that there wasn't at least one engineer working for them who could be bribed by a foreign power? Who is to say they don't have a sleeper agent on their workforce? Why wouldn't a hostile government attempt to gain control of the voting process? Maybe their push to avoid paper records is not just motivated by a desire to cover up problems in a shoddy product - maybe it's really because someone in that company needs to make sure that there can't be a trace?

    I don't really think Diebold is controlled by a foreign power currently, but it seems like a rather high risk to take - combined with a rather low chance of finding out if it were to happen.

  7. Totally makes sense to buy now ... by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 4, Funny

    After the recent Diebold fiasko, their stock has hit record bottom http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

  8. You are absolutely right. by brennanw · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a very TINY handle. And you need to jiggle it in order to get it to flush properly.

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
  9. Hostile Takeover by deacent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually read about this in my local paper Hartford Courant this morning. I don't think the CNN article really does a good job indicating the "hostile" in this hostile takeover. Note the part where Laurer directed UTC not to have further contact with board members.

    My impression is that UTC has been getting more heavily into security over the last several years and they are probably more interested the ATM/check machine aspect of Diebold, in spite of Diebold's entanglements with voting machines.

  10. Pentagon Voting Machines by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems to me that the company dependent on the Pentagon shouldn't have the kind of say in counting votes for office that determine the Pentagon's budget.

    Not while their products are closed systems, able to be rigged in secret, anyway.

    --

    --
    make install -not war