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 : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68663)	9/16/2007 3:23:05 AM
From: Kip S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

OK, Lizzie, how about this? If Reyes from Brocade was indicted and convicted unfairly in your view... -------- The CEO of brocade built brocade from scratch and is a benevolent guy who never received any backdated options.... but he "stole". What a bunch of crap. ------- ...then I'd like to propose a position maybe we can all agree on. Let's agree that Reyes is indeed a benevolent guy who in the grand scheme of things should not be sent to jail or otherwise punished for his actions. That being the case, it is even more repugnant to indict and try more people unfairly. Instead, we should be hoping others are not indicted unfairly and doing whatever we can to prevent further miscarriages of justice. If, in your opinion there has been a miscarriage in the Brocade case, I personally find it indefensible to support additional miscarriages by supporting more unfair indictments. Let's stop now and see if the wrongs that have been done can be undone. Kip

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68663)	9/16/2007 4:17:36 AM
From: Doren	Respond to of 213177

OK I think I see. Of course its why I've never been comfortable in a corporate milieu. This is all about careers. The careers of the prosecutors, executives and lawyers. Crime in general is handled this way. What I mean is it is way easier to convict a blue collar criminal than it is to convict a white collar criminal. Convicting white collar criminals takes a lot of work, tons of hours. The basketballing bloods in South Central understand this and they are pissed off about it, but the golfing preppies in Brentwood still win, no matter the injustice of it or their unawareness or denial of it. Same with journalism. Its easier to be a Nancy Grace than Woodward & Bernstein. Rooting out information is hard and takes a lot of hours. Being indignant over child abuse is not too hard. Same as the Art world that I exited from. The best artists don't win. The best self marketers win. I like that you are indignant about it though. Most people are just oblivious. I'm indignant about everything. You are tougher than me living in that professional world. But it seems like its business as usual to me. In any organization the size of Apple or Brocade or... there are going to be opportunists who verge upon being swindlers. Few of them are caught, probably most people don't even recognize them as different from truly productive people. Sometimes truly productive people get caught in a web or canned despite their good intentions and good work. I've seen it happen many times. The justice system no different. It is an unholy mess here at the end of the days of the US empire. Same as all the Chinese and Egyptian dynasties or the Roman Empire. We fancy ourselves different but we are not. Its all about careers, whether you prosecuted for the Emperor or prosecute for the President. Anyway, it is immoral to gain through gamboling too, but I've got a chunk on Apple and hopefully this will not derail the little pittance I stand to gain. Chopin/Ashkenazy Nocturnes tonight as some escape from an unfair and indifferent world.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68663)	9/17/2007 11:55:06 AM
From: inaflash	Respond to of 213177

Stock Options: To Expense or Not To Expense nam.org Until recently, expensing options was not an accounting requirement. Companies chose whether to expense them or not, as long as it was clear what they were doing. And only recently has backdating clarity been provided as to what constitutes legal versus illegal activity. For the longest time, I don't think anyone really considered the collision of these two effects, and treated them independently. I recall Jobs was attributed as speaking against expensing options while CEO of Apple. Much of what was done wasn't designed to bypass any laws, but simply following a method of accounting. Later legal changes made following those steps illegal in certain situations and companies changed along with it. Many of the investigations are simply bringing this to light. Activities that these companies did 10 years ago may be considered illegal under todays rules, but that doesn't mean that any of these companies actually broke any current laws then or now. The confusion is that standards HAVE changed, and seem to be applied retrospectively. It will be nice to see the statue of limitions expire, so this black cloud can be lifted, especially for all the innocent companies.