Be sure to ignore why there is a reported loss on July 20th, 2000.
Must be the Amortization of Goodwill - which we all know if that if new
economy gurus ran FASB and the SEC, would be eliminated from the accounting lexicon.
But Eugene - look at this - straight from the 10Q (from Note 5, Acquisition):
========================================================
The following summary, prepared on an unaudited pro forma basis, reflects the condensed consolidated results of operations
for the six-month period ended June 30, 2000 and 1999 assuming Interleaf had been acquired at the beginning of the periods
presented (in thousands, except per share data):
<TABLE>
For the six months ended June 30,
2000 1999
Revenue $ 170,508 $ 67,486
Net loss (120,121 ) (128,038 )
Basic and diluted net loss per share $ (0.47 ) $ (0.55 )
</TABLE>
The pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of what would have occurred if the acquisition had been in effect for
the periods presented. In addition, they are not intended to be a projection of future results and do not reflect any
synergies that might be affected from combined operations. The charges for in-process technology have not been included in
the unaudited pro forma results because they are nonrecurring. See Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations for more information concerning the acquisition of Interleaf.
========================================================
And that's without in-process R&D. Those new economy truth-stretchers are true masters at their art. And I guess Interleaf must have been one heck of a pro-forma profitable company before BroadVision bought them.
-Eric |
