Microsoft could scoop the company up right now if they could get enough present shareholders to part with their shares in a non-exchange transaction. I don't think an IPO adds to that risk too greatly.
I'm not sure if cash is a motivator for Google's present owners. Afterall, most of the ownership of Google right now still lies in its original founders, who are rich enough to afford to live well no matter what may happen now.
Sure, an IPO would make them all insanely dot-com rich... but some people would actually turn down that money to keep their company as-is.
It's true that once you hit the "reporting triggers", you effectively have to comply with all of the regulations an exchange-traded company has to... but that doesn't exactly connect to a public IPO. Sure, it's annoying to have to do all of those reports, but with the shares in the company as tightly-held as they are in the moment, do the current shareholders want to part with control of the company right now?
In order to want to do an IPO, the company has to want the cash that the IPO would generate. Basically, the current shareholders would be diluting their current percentage control of the company in order to raise money that can be used to expand the company in some way. Unless Google has a major project that requires new investments, there isn't much motivation for them to want to issue new shares for an IPO.
Now, maybe GMail is that project. But maybe it's not... anybody have some insight on that?
This is sort of like the websites that used to show the "value" of a human body, based on the fact that we have trace levels of valuble metals in us as well.
In the USA, we've moved off of the "Gold Standard" years ago. Fort Knox sill has a large gold reserve to prove that the US Government controls some riches, but there's no static exchange rate anymore. That's why the price of gold changes on a daily market basis just like the conversion between dollar and any other currency.
Clear Channel however does have a point in that they're "unfairly" being regulated in the 88mhz-108mhz range while these other operators have free reign in the 2400mhz-2800mhz range.
That's a simple yet invalid argument. There's a big difference.
The equipment to get signals from the 88mhz-108mhz range is cheap, because they broadcast using a simple analog technology. Kids can buy a simple radio with their allowance... and once they have one they can get all of the content on those broadcast bands.
Meanwhile, all content on the 2400mhz-2800mhz range is digital and encrypted. Not only do you need a complex receiver, but you also need a paid monthly subscription to get the content. (Furthermore, XM offers a simple blocking technology for those who don't want their kids stumbling into Playboy Radio... simply don't pay for it and most models of their units won't even acknowledge it exists.)
Nope. That is their terms of service for all customers. And it's true that right now PPV usage is the only use for the phone line. But, that's just present tense statements... what about the future?
I'm sure that some will respond with "Well then tough shit for those people, don't let them use the service". To which I reply that it's not in any business's best interests to alienate their customers.
It, however, is also not in any business's best interests to alienate their suppliers either. It's the sports leagues and broadcast networks who insist that networks aimed at limited geographic areas must stay in those limited areas. DirecTV's answer to quell those fears is their phone system.
If DirecTV is ever challeged by one of their program suppliers, they're going to be forced to instruct those disconnected boxes to call in. Those who were affaid of telemarketers will have nobody to run to when their service is disrupted and they don't get a refund, since every piece of DirecTV marketing material says that a land-based phone line must be connected to the decoder at all times.
Fox News Channel is not available to Canada because it has 0% Canadian content, and does not have a waiver from the Canadian government to be imported in despite of that fact. CNN has such a waiver... this is more or less a benefit they got for "being there first", and since Fox News Channel is the youngest of the three there's now no complelling reason for "another news network" to be let in.
The much more common situation stateside is when a viewer in Texas wants to see Boston Red Sox games all season. They're suppsoed to pay hundreds of dollars for a plan called "Extra Innings" that delivers a lot of games they don't care about and half the time would show the opposing team's coverage of a Red Sox game, or they could claim a service address in Red Sox territory, and therefore get access to NESN's coverage of the games for no extra charge other than losing access to the Texas-local sports networks.
DirecTV is known to tolerate a "social hack" that allows access to a service you're geographically prohibited from getting. Simply call them and tell them that you want to change your "service address" but not your "billing address"... they don't bother to verify the service address you submit, and then all of your equipment will have access to the programming somebody at that location would have gotten, including major network and regional sports network programs.
They know this is going on. They've done nothing to stop it because they get sales they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, and it's really the content suppliers who are losing out of money they'd otherwise be entitled to.
Any scheme needs to take into account the margin of defeat. If the case is close, then it's fair to not charge the loser. However, if the case should have never gone to court because it was extremely lopsided in one direction, then the penalties kick in. Just like there's punitive damages for a defendant who's so far wrong they need extra punishment, there should be a punative damages award to the defense when a case that never should have been filed is lost.
The problem is, the presumption still remains in favor of the defense. Even when going up against a defendant who presents nothing, it's still required for the plantiff to present something that leads to the conclusion that the defendant is liable.
Even with no facts being contested, DirecTV's evidence in most of the cases simply doesn't get them to where they need to be in order to win.
One detail that also needs to be proven is that the "only-useful-for-stealing" equipment was used against this plantiff. If the hacker turns out to have stolen Dish Network services instead... then DirecTV collects nothing, but Dish Network might want to file a lawsuit after realizing this.
So what that its an open standard, thats perfectly irelevant. paper and pencil is an open standard too, but if I make a note to the bank teller for money its still using the paper to steal you cant use an open standard to do anything you want!!!
If I submit proof that you purchased a pencil and some paper at a store moments before a nearby bank was robbed, should they get the money that was stolen from the bank back from you? Afterall, you had the capability to write the note...
A hacked card is proof of theft. A blank card is not.
It's especially expensive that DirecTV gets to file the lawsuit in the court of their choosing, you'd have to send a lawyer to that destination in order to just motion for it to be moved into your hometown.
Actually, in this case it does. There's no crime in attempting to discramble DirecTV's signal, just in actually doing so... but nevermind, that's the business of the local Prosecutor's Office anyway to file that case.
DirecTV's filing a civil suit. And in order for there to be a civil liablity, the definitely has to be a service obtained without paying for it... no evidence that supports that having happened is the fatal flaw in these cases.
DirecTV's lawsuits are aimed at people who bought ISO 7816 Smart Card equipment from vendors who also distributed DirecTV's access control software, or otherwise published information about how to get around it.
See, this is the slippery slope. In court, it's okay to present evidence that somebody purchased something as proof that the person used that item. However the ISO 7816 Smart Card Standard is more or less "dual-use" equipment. It's an ISO standard, afterall, so it's used in other applications like credit cards, security systems, and ID systems.
That's DirecTV's mistake. They can't quite get courts to accept their claim that the only use of Smart Card equipment is to emulate their cards. There are other uses, so you can't presume that without another piece of proof. Since DirecTV doesn't have that other piece, the lawsuit is over and they lose.
Sure, a majority of people who suddenly got interested in ISO 7816 were people who wanted to hack DirecTV... but how is a court to know whether it has a member of that majority, or the minority who had legit other uses in front of it? Without additional proof, the presumption that it was a legit use goes uncontested, and the court rules for the defense...
The DirecTV "accused pirate lawsuits" story has been going on for quite a while.
The point of the problem is this: They're having something in the area of a 90-95% success rate in accusing people who were actually watching DirecTV's programming without paying for it. Or, to state it in a less pretty way, they were harassing completely innocent techies with to 5-10% of their efforts.
What's worse, is that the hackers have realized that so long as they don't confess, DirecTV doesn't have enough evidence to win most of the lawsuits they're filing. In fact, successful defenses have been mounted by making no defense at all. Usually trivial motions like the standard motion a defense lawyer always makes to dismiss the case after the plantiff's case claiming they didn't meet the minimum standards of proof, or motions for summary judgement against a defendant who no-shows are not going DirecTV's way. The only people to lose cases have been ones who either confessed or said something stupid to DirecTV that gets used against them.
Yet, despite these devistating blows in court, DirecTV is continuing to operate this SCOish collectors and lawyers devision. Despite having cases of zero chance of suceeding legally, they have been able to get people to hand over settlement money such that this operation is profitable.
What we need in this country is a higher penality for filing a lawsuit that is eventually lost. Basically, people are signing admissions of guilt and sending in checks in order to get the harassing phone calls to stop, when in reality they should be calling DirecTV's bluff and letting them file the lawsuit.
In one of the school districts I was in, once a quarter a standardized test in both english and math was administered... however, the test given to each student would be based on the most recent test in that indiviual student had passed before.
For example, when I was in 2nd Grade, I had advanced to the 3rd grade test in English. One time, I fell one correct answer short of advancing... and I had missed a question on spliting sentances into a "subject" and "predicate", as I had never been taught that. When going over our results, I asked the second grade teacher to explain that question. She told the class that this was a question that they wouldn't be expected to master until next year, but then proceeded to give some examples. It was good enough for me... I advanced to the next level on the next chance.
After Sept. 11, to the amusement/horror of music critics and radio industry professionals, Clear Channel issued a list of 150 songs to its member stations that it deemed too sensitive to play in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The list included an odd mix of songs: the more understandable choices featured flight references ("Bennie and the Jets," "Ticket to Ride"); others were associated with New York ("On Broadway"); and, most surprisingly, many were related to peace ("Bridge Over Troubled Water," "Imagine"). The list also included all songs by the political rock group Rage Against the Machine.
That wasn't an official company list, but rather a thread on an intranet message board where all of the various program directors brainstormed songs that would be inapproprate to play once their stations resumed normal programming. There wasn't any order that the list had to be observed or had a specific timeframe to it... they were just pointing out that playing a song by the "B-52s" would have taken on a new unintended meaning that it didn't have on Sept. 10, 2001 if played on Sept 13th.
They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 race. What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. In contrast, Viacom (VIA) executives and its political action committee gave just 30% of their $545,650 to Republican candidates. Viacom syndicates Stern's show. That's more or less giving money to the politicans that most support your company's goals... Viacom would like to see some liberal media laws so that they can continue making money off of Howard Stern, Clear Channel has expunged what little borderline indecent content they've had.
Computers in a classroom are a tool. If used properly, the teacher can turn what used to be a dull slide-show experience into a slightly better PowerPoint experience.
Of course, the key thing is making sure the right content is loaded into either presentation aid...
Children's Television Workshop, the producers of "Sesame Street", used to have other shows as well.
- "The Electric Company" was a spinoff for kids who had just outgrown the muppets of Seasame Street, but still had more to learn. It was basically the same kind of show, but leaned just a little older.
- "3-2-1 Contact" was the science spinoff for middle school students. It presented some grade-level appropriate documentaries, followed by The Bloodhound Gang using those concepts to solve mysteries.
- "Square One Televison" was the math spinoff, presenting skits, catoons, music videos, and games that all math concepts for grade school students.
However, all of those shows have since faded off of PBS, and CTW has now even taken on the name of Sesame Workshop which more-or-less indicates that they don't intend on ever expanding beyond Seasame Street again...
The entire PBS Kids lineup seems to have taken a turn for the younger, with babby-level shows like Teletubbies and Barney lining up with Seasame Street and still-timeless episodes of Mr. Rogers's Neighborhood. Shows aimed at middle schoolers have fallen off the board altogether... and I see that as a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft could scoop the company up right now if they could get enough present shareholders to part with their shares in a non-exchange transaction. I don't think an IPO adds to that risk too greatly.
Google's special-logo rules are eratic. They recently did a special logo for the birthday of Gaston Julia. Who really celebrates that?
I'm not sure if cash is a motivator for Google's present owners. Afterall, most of the ownership of Google right now still lies in its original founders, who are rich enough to afford to live well no matter what may happen now.
Sure, an IPO would make them all insanely dot-com rich... but some people would actually turn down that money to keep their company as-is.
Everybody's talking about Google doing an IPO... except for anybody who'd really know if this is happening or just a rumor.
It's true that once you hit the "reporting triggers", you effectively have to comply with all of the regulations an exchange-traded company has to... but that doesn't exactly connect to a public IPO. Sure, it's annoying to have to do all of those reports, but with the shares in the company as tightly-held as they are in the moment, do the current shareholders want to part with control of the company right now?
In order to want to do an IPO, the company has to want the cash that the IPO would generate. Basically, the current shareholders would be diluting their current percentage control of the company in order to raise money that can be used to expand the company in some way. Unless Google has a major project that requires new investments, there isn't much motivation for them to want to issue new shares for an IPO.
Now, maybe GMail is that project. But maybe it's not... anybody have some insight on that?
This is sort of like the websites that used to show the "value" of a human body, based on the fact that we have trace levels of valuble metals in us as well.
In the USA, we've moved off of the "Gold Standard" years ago. Fort Knox sill has a large gold reserve to prove that the US Government controls some riches, but there's no static exchange rate anymore. That's why the price of gold changes on a daily market basis just like the conversion between dollar and any other currency.
Clear Channel however does have a point in that they're "unfairly" being regulated in the 88mhz-108mhz range while these other operators have free reign in the 2400mhz-2800mhz range.
That's a simple yet invalid argument. There's a big difference.
The equipment to get signals from the 88mhz-108mhz range is cheap, because they broadcast using a simple analog technology. Kids can buy a simple radio with their allowance... and once they have one they can get all of the content on those broadcast bands.
Meanwhile, all content on the 2400mhz-2800mhz range is digital and encrypted. Not only do you need a complex receiver, but you also need a paid monthly subscription to get the content. (Furthermore, XM offers a simple blocking technology for those who don't want their kids stumbling into Playboy Radio... simply don't pay for it and most models of their units won't even acknowledge it exists.)
Nope. That is their terms of service for all customers. And it's true that right now PPV usage is the only use for the phone line. But, that's just present tense statements... what about the future?
For proper operation of your Equipment, DISH Network requires that you connect each DISH Network receiver on your account to a telephone line. For accounts containing multiple receivers, each receiver must be connected to the same telephone line.
Uhm... guess what, not having a phone line connected to your Dish Network equipment exposes you to the exact same risk.
I'm sure that some will respond with "Well then tough shit for those people, don't let them use the service". To which I reply that it's not in any business's best interests to alienate their customers.
It, however, is also not in any business's best interests to alienate their suppliers either. It's the sports leagues and broadcast networks who insist that networks aimed at limited geographic areas must stay in those limited areas. DirecTV's answer to quell those fears is their phone system.
If DirecTV is ever challeged by one of their program suppliers, they're going to be forced to instruct those disconnected boxes to call in. Those who were affaid of telemarketers will have nobody to run to when their service is disrupted and they don't get a refund, since every piece of DirecTV marketing material says that a land-based phone line must be connected to the decoder at all times.
Fox News Channel is not available to Canada because it has 0% Canadian content, and does not have a waiver from the Canadian government to be imported in despite of that fact. CNN has such a waiver... this is more or less a benefit they got for "being there first", and since Fox News Channel is the youngest of the three there's now no complelling reason for "another news network" to be let in.
The much more common situation stateside is when a viewer in Texas wants to see Boston Red Sox games all season. They're suppsoed to pay hundreds of dollars for a plan called "Extra Innings" that delivers a lot of games they don't care about and half the time would show the opposing team's coverage of a Red Sox game, or they could claim a service address in Red Sox territory, and therefore get access to NESN's coverage of the games for no extra charge other than losing access to the Texas-local sports networks.
DirecTV is known to tolerate a "social hack" that allows access to a service you're geographically prohibited from getting. Simply call them and tell them that you want to change your "service address" but not your "billing address"... they don't bother to verify the service address you submit, and then all of your equipment will have access to the programming somebody at that location would have gotten, including major network and regional sports network programs.
They know this is going on. They've done nothing to stop it because they get sales they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, and it's really the content suppliers who are losing out of money they'd otherwise be entitled to.
Any scheme needs to take into account the margin of defeat. If the case is close, then it's fair to not charge the loser. However, if the case should have never gone to court because it was extremely lopsided in one direction, then the penalties kick in. Just like there's punitive damages for a defendant who's so far wrong they need extra punishment, there should be a punative damages award to the defense when a case that never should have been filed is lost.
The problem is, the presumption still remains in favor of the defense. Even when going up against a defendant who presents nothing, it's still required for the plantiff to present something that leads to the conclusion that the defendant is liable.
Even with no facts being contested, DirecTV's evidence in most of the cases simply doesn't get them to where they need to be in order to win.
One detail that also needs to be proven is that the "only-useful-for-stealing" equipment was used against this plantiff. If the hacker turns out to have stolen Dish Network services instead... then DirecTV collects nothing, but Dish Network might want to file a lawsuit after realizing this.
So what that its an open standard, thats perfectly irelevant. paper and pencil is an open standard too, but if I make a note to the bank teller for money its still using the paper to steal you cant use an open standard to do anything you want!!!
If I submit proof that you purchased a pencil and some paper at a store moments before a nearby bank was robbed, should they get the money that was stolen from the bank back from you? Afterall, you had the capability to write the note...
A hacked card is proof of theft. A blank card is not.
It's especially expensive that DirecTV gets to file the lawsuit in the court of their choosing, you'd have to send a lawyer to that destination in order to just motion for it to be moved into your hometown.
Failure does not necessitate innocence.
Actually, in this case it does. There's no crime in attempting to discramble DirecTV's signal, just in actually doing so... but nevermind, that's the business of the local Prosecutor's Office anyway to file that case.
DirecTV's filing a civil suit. And in order for there to be a civil liablity, the definitely has to be a service obtained without paying for it... no evidence that supports that having happened is the fatal flaw in these cases.
DirecTV's lawsuits are aimed at people who bought ISO 7816 Smart Card equipment from vendors who also distributed DirecTV's access control software, or otherwise published information about how to get around it.
See, this is the slippery slope. In court, it's okay to present evidence that somebody purchased something as proof that the person used that item. However the ISO 7816 Smart Card Standard is more or less "dual-use" equipment. It's an ISO standard, afterall, so it's used in other applications like credit cards, security systems, and ID systems.
That's DirecTV's mistake. They can't quite get courts to accept their claim that the only use of Smart Card equipment is to emulate their cards. There are other uses, so you can't presume that without another piece of proof. Since DirecTV doesn't have that other piece, the lawsuit is over and they lose.
Sure, a majority of people who suddenly got interested in ISO 7816 were people who wanted to hack DirecTV... but how is a court to know whether it has a member of that majority, or the minority who had legit other uses in front of it? Without additional proof, the presumption that it was a legit use goes uncontested, and the court rules for the defense...
The DirecTV "accused pirate lawsuits" story has been going on for quite a while.
The point of the problem is this: They're having something in the area of a 90-95% success rate in accusing people who were actually watching DirecTV's programming without paying for it. Or, to state it in a less pretty way, they were harassing completely innocent techies with to 5-10% of their efforts.
What's worse, is that the hackers have realized that so long as they don't confess, DirecTV doesn't have enough evidence to win most of the lawsuits they're filing. In fact, successful defenses have been mounted by making no defense at all. Usually trivial motions like the standard motion a defense lawyer always makes to dismiss the case after the plantiff's case claiming they didn't meet the minimum standards of proof, or motions for summary judgement against a defendant who no-shows are not going DirecTV's way. The only people to lose cases have been ones who either confessed or said something stupid to DirecTV that gets used against them.
Yet, despite these devistating blows in court, DirecTV is continuing to operate this SCOish collectors and lawyers devision. Despite having cases of zero chance of suceeding legally, they have been able to get people to hand over settlement money such that this operation is profitable.
What we need in this country is a higher penality for filing a lawsuit that is eventually lost. Basically, people are signing admissions of guilt and sending in checks in order to get the harassing phone calls to stop, when in reality they should be calling DirecTV's bluff and letting them file the lawsuit.
In one of the school districts I was in, once a quarter a standardized test in both english and math was administered... however, the test given to each student would be based on the most recent test in that indiviual student had passed before.
For example, when I was in 2nd Grade, I had advanced to the 3rd grade test in English. One time, I fell one correct answer short of advancing... and I had missed a question on spliting sentances into a "subject" and "predicate", as I had never been taught that. When going over our results, I asked the second grade teacher to explain that question. She told the class that this was a question that they wouldn't be expected to master until next year, but then proceeded to give some examples. It was good enough for me... I advanced to the next level on the next chance.
After Sept. 11, to the amusement/horror of music critics and radio industry professionals, Clear Channel issued a list of 150 songs to its member stations that it deemed too sensitive to play in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The list included an odd mix of songs: the more understandable choices featured flight references ("Bennie and the Jets," "Ticket to Ride"); others were associated with New York ("On Broadway"); and, most surprisingly, many were related to peace ("Bridge Over Troubled Water," "Imagine"). The list also included all songs by the political rock group Rage Against the Machine.
That wasn't an official company list, but rather a thread on an intranet message board where all of the various program directors brainstormed songs that would be inapproprate to play once their stations resumed normal programming. There wasn't any order that the list had to be observed or had a specific timeframe to it... they were just pointing out that playing a song by the "B-52s" would have taken on a new unintended meaning that it didn't have on Sept. 10, 2001 if played on Sept 13th.
They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 race. What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. In contrast, Viacom (VIA) executives and its political action committee gave just 30% of their $545,650 to Republican candidates. Viacom syndicates Stern's show.
That's more or less giving money to the politicans that most support your company's goals... Viacom would like to see some liberal media laws so that they can continue making money off of Howard Stern, Clear Channel has expunged what little borderline indecent content they've had.
Computers in a classroom are a tool. If used properly, the teacher can turn what used to be a dull slide-show experience into a slightly better PowerPoint experience.
Of course, the key thing is making sure the right content is loaded into either presentation aid...
Children's Television Workshop, the producers of "Sesame Street", used to have other shows as well.
- "The Electric Company" was a spinoff for kids who had just outgrown the muppets of Seasame Street, but still had more to learn. It was basically the same kind of show, but leaned just a little older.
- "3-2-1 Contact" was the science spinoff for middle school students. It presented some grade-level appropriate documentaries, followed by The Bloodhound Gang using those concepts to solve mysteries.
- "Square One Televison" was the math spinoff, presenting skits, catoons, music videos, and games that all math concepts for grade school students.
However, all of those shows have since faded off of PBS, and CTW has now even taken on the name of Sesame Workshop which more-or-less indicates that they don't intend on ever expanding beyond Seasame Street again...
The entire PBS Kids lineup seems to have taken a turn for the younger, with babby-level shows like Teletubbies and Barney lining up with Seasame Street and still-timeless episodes of Mr. Rogers's Neighborhood. Shows aimed at middle schoolers have fallen off the board altogether... and I see that as a problem.