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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (419528)	9/24/2008 2:02:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574199

>>> he is still a partner. But has neither a profits nor an equity interest. This means he is financially isolated and does not stand to gain from any relationship his old firm has. Should YOU be held accountable for acts of a company you worked for five years ago? Of course, not.

To: combjelly who wrote (419528)	9/24/2008 2:25:04 PM
From: HPilot	Respond to of 1574199

According to this newsweek.com he is still a partner. I really don't think it matters if he was a partner, but I cannot see where it says he is currently a partner, only that he was in the past. Now it does imply this, but I don't see that it says this is fact.

To: combjelly who wrote (419528)	9/24/2008 2:32:39 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1574199

According to this newsweek.com he is still a partner. If a man is a partner, but has no equity interest and has no profits interest, he is a partner "in name only" and there is no conflict of interests. For example, Johnnie Cochran, though dead, is this type of partner in his old law firm. He's not getting any money, but his name is still on the door. If he is receiving money or equity, that's a different thing. Why do you continue to argue a subject you quite obviously know nothing about?