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: Bill Harmond who wrote (22064)	10/17/1998 12:50:00 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

uniontrib.com

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (22064)	10/17/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

I agree totally. I'm not agruing that ethics doesn't matter. But this isn't the point. That is the point It is not just experience, it is trade secrets and technology that AMZN is stealing. Stealing is against the law. AMZN has had a record of keeping their business as sceret as possible. They do not want to even answer questions by analysts because "It would give away their trade secrets." Yet, they are stealing trade secrets from a retailer. I am sure missing the ethics. Employees leave all kinds of companies to work for competitors. They take experience with them. Wal-Mart is being raided (that happens alot, too) and they're falling back on an Arkansas law to stop it. William, Does something occuring a lot make it right? I mean murder happens a lot and so does rape. It is a common practice so let's not enforce laws against it. You disappoint me at times with your obsession with AMZN, Kleiner Perkins and John Doer. Ethics should matter to you! Glenn

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (22064)	10/17/1998 7:15:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT; PCX) announced today the filing of legal action against Amazon.com, and its affiliates, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Drugstore.com, and others, for violation of the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act. The Trade Secrets Act makes it illegal for an individual, or a group of individuals, to use a company's trade secrets for their personal advantage, or to the advantage of a competing company. William, I did some research. I found that every state that I researched has a Trade Secrets Act. They are all worded the same. This act is not specific to Arkansa. There is no Federal Statute on the matter and I looked in 12 states and found every state had the same law. That is just like the wording of sales and use tax laws. The intention of that law is to prevent other people and groups from using Trade Secrets to their advantage. This law was enacted by the states to protect the companys that are based in the state in question. This suit is not limited to Amazon.con as though only Amazon.con was the culprit. It is also aimed at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and specifically John Doer from what I can tell. I an inferring from this that Amazon.con obtained this information from prior Walmart employees and they did not just use this information for themselves. They shared it with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers shared it with other online retail firms. If this allegation is proven, which I suspect it will be, we have people with lots of money such as John Doer and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers using the work and technology of others for their own use. This is no different than taking video movies, copying them and selling them to others. It is the sames as making multiple copies of software. It is down right disgusting and would imply to me that Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are a group of very dishonest people. This would only be the case if Walmart can prove their case. It takes a short period of time to have an injunction granted, typically thirty days if it is a simple matter to prove. Damages take much longer to proved but this case is broken into two parts. The first and foremost is the injunction which could be in affect by November 19, 1998. Where will that leave Amazon.con if they cannot use their present distribution software and distribution centers for Christmas delivery? I do not wish to hear how the proprietary technology of companys is often raided. You would be lowering yourself to the lack of ethics and standards of Amazon.con and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Tell me you are not like that. I want to believe you are not a believer in being dishonest for money. I see dishonesty regularly. My stores average a major robbery during operating hours every few years. This excludes the small shoplift or grab and run. Please tell me that you would not do such a thing if you knew you could get away with it. Otherwise, you are not the person I thought you were. Glenn

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (22064)	10/18/1998 8:20:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

From Today's New York Times. Just a part of the Goldman Sacks high ethical standards in my opinion<G> True, Russia was a mess, the government's bank accounts were almost empty and even the postal system was near collapse. But Goldman wanted to become Russia's leading deal maker, paid handsomely to finance the government and newly private businesses. Now was the time to prove that Goldman could come through with money in a crisis. So in the days preceding its elegant soiree, Goldman helped the government raise money by selling $1.25 billion in bonds. A few weeks later, it arranged a complex deal in which short-term debt was exchanged for long-term debt to give Russia financial breathing room. It was not enough. By late August, the Russian government stopped paying what it owed on much of its debt. Buyers of the bonds that Goldman sold now hold nearly worthless paper. Goldman itself escaped the blood bath: in the course of those bond deals it earned tens of millions of dollars in fees and protected hundreds of millions of dollars it had at stake in Russia. When the government defaulted, Goldman said its losses were "absolutely minimal." Senior Goldman executives expressed regret that Russia's economic program collapsed and that the deals that bear Goldman's imprimatur did not always work as intended. But they defended the firm's role there as "very constructive" and attributed the country's troubles to problems that had little to do with investment banking. Goldman maintains a small office in Russia. But the firm's troubled bond deal and the skillful protection of its own money are a window on the role that many investment banks played in the breathless rise and fall of the newly liberated Russian economy. To critics, including Russian officials, analysts and some investment bankers who worked in Russia, Wall Street helped hook Russia on easy money, rarely saying no or advising clients to take it slow. They fed the seemingly insatiable appetite for borrowed money. Glenn