Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (129479)	8/1/2001 8:08:45 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Gst, the class action lawyers are after Mary Meeeeeeker! Btw Did you hear Meeker got another $5 million pa contract to stay at Morgan Stanley for the next 5 years? Btw The new economy boyz have always loved Mary Meeker, and Abbey J Cohen. >BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Aug 1, 2001 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Amazon.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN chart, msgs) from August 1, 1998 through January 22, 2001, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (NYSE: MWD chart, msgs)("Morgan Stanley"), a company which has provided investment banking services to Amazon, is named as a defendant in this lawsuit, along with Morgan Stanley's Internet analyst Mary Meeker ("Meeker"). No Amazon employees are named as defendants in this lawsuit. To view a copy of the complaint online please visit www.sbclasslaw.com. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com. Historically, brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley that performed both investment banking and research analysis activities maintained a "Chinese Wall" between the two functions to ensure that the analysts' research and recommendations remained objective and were not influenced by the firm's interest in attracting and retaining investment banking business. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Chinese Wall did not exist between Meeker and Morgan Stanley, which caused class members to suffer millions of dollars in damages. Specifically, the complaint charges Morgan Stanley and Meeker with issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information concerning Meeker's true relationship with Amazon throughout the Class Period. Among other things, the complaint alleges that: (i) contrary to Morgan Stanley's public representations, Meeker's main job at Morgan Stanley during the Class Period was attracting and retaining investment banking clients for Morgan Stanley; (ii) Meeker's ratings, recommendations, and positive statements regarding Amazon were not based on objective analyses, but rather on her desire to attract and retain Amazon as a Morgan Stanley banking client; and (iii) Meeker's compensation was directly tied to the amount of investment banking business she generated for Morgan Stanley. The complaint further alleges that the facts described above were not disclosed to the market during the Class Period because it was in both Morgan Stanley's and Meeker's interest for her to become Morgan Stanley's "star investment banker." The complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley improperly earned millions of dollars in fees due to Meeker's behind the scenes deal- making and business-generating activities. The complaint also alleges that Meeker personally benefitted from her improper conduct, which allowed her to purportedly earn $15 million in 1999 alone, which amount was largely based on her ability to attract and retain investment banking business for Morgan Stanley. All of the undisclosed facts detailed above caused class members to purchase Amazon common stock at inflated prices throughout the Class Period, which has caused them to suffer enormous damages. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, who has significant experience and expertise prosecuting class actions on behalf of investors and shareholders. For more information on Schiffrin & Barroway, or to sign-up to participate in this action online, please visit www.sbclasslaw.com. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than September 30, 2001, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.

To: GST who wrote (129479)	8/1/2001 8:16:51 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<<point me to a couple of pre chain weighted studies that show computers generating productivity gains on the part of users >> Actually perhaps the opposite is true. A few yrs ago I had a 25-minute conversation with the admin assistant for the bus operations dept of the co I was then with. She is in her late 40's. She told me that before computers, they did xy and z in terms of information gathering, collation and report preparation. Then along came computers, and there was so much more data that could be collected and crunched, recrunched, then re-processed to give the best spin for exec management, the workload increased. She said requests for data to the field offices ballooned. She said she spent a lot more time putting together reports and then ripping out sections and replacing them with new versions at the last minute. Maybe this does not reflect overall efficiencies or lack thereof, but the computer seems to have enabled more data to be collected and crunched. In most cases it is used wisely imo, but the added G&A that goes with it is real, also. And although the following is generated by a co that benfits from the employee web surfing problem, I think it rings true to some extent. Wednesday August 1, 2:20 pm Eastern Time TheStandard.com Software Maker Warns of Billions Lost Due to Net Use By IDG The Internet, this grand master of information once ushered into businesses as an invaluable workplace tool, is now being judged as something slightly more sinister: a costly employee time-waster. At least this is the premise on which one firm is selling its new employee Internet management (EIM) software, claiming that U.S. companies lose billions of dollars a year due to employees' recreational Internet use. San Diego, California-based Websense Inc. said Wednesday that it estimates that U.S. companies lose US$63 billion a year in lost productivity due to the Net, which the company claims is a "major distraction" for employees. Websense, which is a software maker, not a research company, said it based its estimate on the U.S. Census Bureau's average U.S. salary and an hour of work lost per week due to employees' personal Internet use. Although the company's complete methodology was not defined, a January 2000 report from technology researcher Gartner Inc. stated that although access to the Net empowers users to gather and process information very quickly, "Internet use in many organizations is a large contributor to lost user productivity." Gartner doesn't estimate the amount of money businesses lose in productivity due to the Net, but the researcher did state the need to limit how employees use the medium. Gartner's report, entitled "Components of a PC Policy," said that corporate computer policies should warn employees that the Internet should not be used for any nonwork related purposes. The Gartner analysts conceded, however, that a total elimination of leisure browsing is not realistic, and suggested that employees be permitted some "casual" Internet use, something akin to personal phone calls from work. But while policies are all fine and good, actual Net practice may paint a different story. A Nielsen//NetRatings study released a few weeks ago revealed that at-work Net use grew 23 percent from June of last year to June 2001. Although the study did not break the numbers down according to personal and work-related use, it's clear that workers are spending more time than ever online. Given this, companies like Websense are selling products that definitively control the amount of time employees can use for recreational Web use. Websense recently released its Enterprise v4.3 software, which allows IT administrators to set quotas as to how much time employees are allowed to spend surfing the Net for personal purposes each day. After the allotted time, say 30 minutes given to employees a day to surf entertainment and shopping sites, access to the Net gets limited to work-related sites. The company, which boasts an array of EIM software, claims to have half of the Fortune 500 as clients, and partnerships with companies such as Microsoft Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. If businesses truly are demanding more Net control for their employees, as Websense suggests, workers should take heed at where they choose to do their surfing. One day soon, access may be denied. Copyright 2001 IDG News Service, International Data Group Inc. All rights reserved.

To: GST who wrote (129479)	8/1/2001 8:33:07 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Hi: Help dispense the myth -- point me to a couple of pre chain weighted studies that show computers generating productivity gains on the part of users -- serious request, really. There are almost none coming from economists in academia, but plenty coming from industry: - The role of supercomputers in supply management for Walmart is well known. - The improvements in the trucking industry with computerized tracking and GPS. - Improved efficiency in scheduling of flights for airline companies. - Improved provisioning of electricity generation (actually this is well documented by engineers in academia). - Improved usage of fabric in apparel shops (this one was a tough nut to crack, because human taylors are very efficient). Some of those improvements did not show in the bottom line because gains were reinvested into more computers, others were passed directly to the consumer. Could you imagine running Visa or MasterCard without computers?