Jobs dumps Apple stock

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Jobs dumps Apple stock (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060324210952)
Description:: Steve Jobs has sold 45 percent of his Apple stock netting him $295 million

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[zap2]

should have waited until it went up to 80ish

[LimeiBook86]

Well for some reason this doesn't feel right...hopefully he doesn't know something we don't :eek:

[socamx]

Uh, why would he dump his majority?

[ITASOR]

I'm not to into the stock market, but why would you sell off stocks in your own company? :confused: He has no confidence that Apple will do well and they'll increase?

[Chaszmyr]

Well for some reason this doesn't feel right...hopefully he doesn't know something we don't :eek:

It almost seems like if youre the CEO if a company you have to intentionally sell your stock low so that you arent accused of insider trading. Lets hope thats the case! :o

[LimeiBook86]

It almost seems like if youre the CEO if a company you have to intentionally sell your stock low so that you arent accused of insider trading. Lets hope thats the case! :o
Good point ;) haha

[iMeowbot]

He's cashing in options. That's what he's supposed to do with them! You all didn't really think he intended to work for only $1 a year, did you? :)

[funkychunkz]

I'll feel better if he buys more later.

[m-dogg]

When you get stock options, you usually have to become vested, which basically means you have to wait a predetermined number of years before you have the ability to even cash them in.

And then at a predetermined number of years after you become vested, the options will eventually expire.

So you have to cash in your stock options at some point between when you become vested but before they expire, or else you'd basically forfeit them and through that money away.

This could very likely (and probably) mean nothing more than the fact that some of his options were going to expire, so he cashed them in. No secret hidden meanings here.

With his $1 a year salary, I bet Apple gives him boatloads of stock options of different varieties. What I described above is just one type of many different stock options, grants, shares, etc...

[Ja Di ksw]

He's cashing in options. That's what he's supposed to do with them! You all didn't really think he intended to work for only $1 a year, did you? :)

I thought he and his family would live off of the good feelings they get from making others happy :(

[sfhc21]

He had to cash them in to pay taxes...all of the cash went to the IRS.

[Stella]

I thought he and his family would live off of the good feelings they get from making others happy :(

LOL.

Steve jobs is no Mother Teresa.

[jhu]

He had to cash them in to pay taxes...all of the cash went to the IRS.

well, he's only pulling in $1 in salary. but, i'm not his portfolio manager. besides, you can't buy things with stock since it's not legal tender for debts public and private.

[SC68Cal]

Hopefully Apple doesn't pull an Enron :shiftyeyes:

[aquafina]

Uh, why would he dump his majority?

Apple Outstanding shares = approx 899M
SJobs shares (before sale) = approx 9M

That's about 1% of the company. Now he owns 1/2%. Neither amount gives him any voting power. Of course, as CEO, he has ultimate power.

As others have already said, this was simply exercising options before they expire. No need to panic.

[Jetson]

The move by France to force Apple to open it's DRM might have a long term, adverse impact on the stock price. Analysts and traders tend to be skittish about such developments.

It's never a bad time to sell and collect almost $300 million :cool:

Besides, didn't Jobs recently accept a bunch of Disney stock for the Pixar sale? He's the largest individual shareholder of Disney now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

[WildCowboy]

I can't see the article because MacBytes appears to be down. But Steve's 10 million shares that he received several years ago just vested this month. There's no way they're expiring yet.

[socamx]

Just seems risky to me for him to give up his majority of power over Apple with his stock. Can't say I wouldn't do the same though.

[Glenn Wolsey]

Its to pay off his due taxes...

[sfhc21]

Guys, like I said, Steve had to do this because of the law. New regulations that went in effect in 2003 require payment at once on large restricted stock grants. The IRS demanded the money right away, all 296 million of it.

The shares went back to Apple for cash that went to the IRS. Those shares are now retired...

[Yvan256]

Well for some reason this doesn't feel right...hopefully he doesn't know something we don't :eek:

Doesn't feel right indeed, especially at a time when AAPL is somewhat low (around 60$US). Maybe he couldn't sell earlier? But why didn't he wait for it to climb up to, say, at least 70$US?

Edit: IRS, options... ok then!

[MacQuest]

1st post:
Uh, why would he dump his majority?

2nd post:
Just seems risky to me for him to give up his majority of power over Apple with his stock. Can't say I wouldn't do the same though.


As pointed out by another member:

Apple Outstanding shares = approx 899M
SJobs shares (before sale) = approx 9M

That's about 1% of the company. Now he owns 1/2%. Neither amount gives him any voting power. Of course, as CEO, he has ultimate power.

So, what majority are you talking about?!!!

Majority of his stock? He sold 45%, which is not the majority and was clearly stated as being the amount sold in the description of this threads initial post:

Description: Steve Jobs has sold 45 percent of his Apple stock netting him $295 million

Majority of power? He didn't own 51% of 889 million shares which would give him majority voting power. Again, as stated by "aquafina", his power lies in being CEO of the company, which has nothing to do with his 1% [now 1/2%] share of stocks.

...Can't say I wouldn't do the same though.

What is that supposed to mean? No one would care if you sold 45% of 1% of a companies total stock to pay off the IRS as required by law.

It's meaningless and in no way gives up his "majority of power."

:rolleyes:

[DMann]

1st post:

What is that supposed to mean? No one would care if you sold 45% of 1% of a companies total stock to pay off the IRS as required by law.

It's meaningless and in no way gives up his "majority of power."

:rolleyes:

Perhaps it would have been a bit less alarming had he
sold the options in smaller increments over time .....

[MacQuest]

Perhaps it would have been a bit less alarming had he
sold the options in smaller increments over time .....

How could he?!!!

Steve's 10 million shares that he received several years ago just vested this month.


Steve had to do this because of the law. New regulations that went in effect in 2003 require payment at once on large restricted stock grants. The IRS demanded the money right away, all 296 million of it.

So he couldn't cash in his stock prior to this month because it hadn't vested yet, AND the IRS demanded the money right away.

Sounds logical and responsibe to me.

Also, I think that if he had sold earlier this month at around $70 and then the stock went down to it's current $60, THAT would have been alarming and possibly caused panic among shareholders and/or have been seen as insider trading.

No conspiracies to see here people, move along. :rolleyes:

[DMann]

How could he?!!!





So he couldn't cash in his stock prior to this month because it hadn't vested yet, AND the IRS demanded the money right away.

Sounds logical and responsibe to me.

No conspiracies to see here people, move along. :rolleyes:

Yes, it does sound logical, but we do not know for a fact that any demands by the IRS were made. However, if he believed that good news was on the horizon, perhaps he would have opted to pay the IRS with cash on hand and wait a month or so to allow his options grow an extra 20% before liquidating. As uneventful as it likely is, observers will always wonder
why large quantities of stock or options are sold, especially by the CEO
of the said company.

[Agathon]

LOL.

Steve jobs is no Mother Teresa.

That is true, but he's not running Apple for the money. He's already got more than he could ever spend from Pixar. I think he runs Apple because he enjoys being a technology leader, and because he loves the company (which he did co-found) like it was one of his children.

[portent]

That is true, but he's not running Apple for the money. He's already got more than he could ever spend from Pixar. I think he runs Apple because he enjoys being a technology leader, and because he loves the company (which he did co-found) like it was one of his children.

Steve makes (er, made) a $1 salary at Pixar, too. And so far as I know, he doesn't really have a "role" within Disney. He had 51% of Pixar's stock, which allowed him to singlehandedly sell it to Disney. (No need for "shareholder approval.")

Now his PIXR holdings are DIS holdings...not something you can use to buy lunch, much less gas for his Mercedes. So he had to do something, both to pay the IRS, and just to have spending money. Dumping his Disney stock would be seen as a no-confidence vote in the new Disney...it might even be against the terms of his agreement. So about half of his Apple shares went on the block.

[winmacguy]

It's all explained here http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1621 :cool: :rolleyes:

[MacQuest]

Yes, it does sound logical, but we do not know for a fact that any demands by the IRS were made.

So it comes down to paranoid conspiracy theorizing with you or believing a posted SEC filing and widepread reports by other sites confirming that the recently vested stock sale was to satisfy IRS demands? I think I'll go with all of them, but thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:

SEC Filing:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4291132&Type=HTML

From Daring Fireball:
"More or less, Jobs just had 10 million shares vest, and he sold just enough of them to the pay the taxes on all of them. If he hadn’t sold any, he’d have had to pay about $300 million in taxes out of his pocket."
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/march#wed-22-jobs_aapl

From AppleInsider:
"In order to meet his tax obligations on the 10M restricted shares, which vested this month, Jobs elected to net-share settle -- essentially allowing Apple to withhold and pay to authorities the portion of the 10M shares that would meet his tax payment requirements."
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1621

However, if he believed that good news was on the horizon, perhaps he would have opted to pay the IRS with cash on hand and wait a month or so to allow his options grow an extra 20% before liquidating.

If Steve Jobs were a lesser man and primarily money driven, this could be the case. As stated by MR member Stella, "Steve Jobs is no Mother Theresa", but he's also no untalented, soul-less, thieving bill gates either.

And don't give me the "bill gates is a philanthropist" BS either. A real philanthropist would have done good things like starting the "bill & Melinda gates Foundation" without hesitation and before [he was a billionaire prior to 2001] being urged to do so by his legal counsel and PR representatives immediately after his companies' first anti-competitive/monopoly conviction in 2001, in order to win some public favor and not look [i]so blatantly like the kniving little b**ch that he is.

Yes, SJ could have waited to make more money when the stock rised, or he could simply do the responsible thing and just handle this issue immediately to avoid any hassles from the IRS and/or avoid any out of pocket expenses, as had been speculated to be the case from the get-go and now seems to be overwhelmingly clear is exactly what he had done.

As uneventful as it likely is, observers will always wonder
why large quantities of stock or options are sold, especially by the CEO
of the said company.

It would be uneventful were it not for people who don't do at least a little responsible research into publicly available information before they post paranoid conspiracy theories.

[technicolor]

So it comes down to paranoid conspiracy theorizing with you or believing a posted SEC filing and widepread reports by other sites confirming that the stock sale was to satisfy IRS demands? I think I'll go with all of them, but thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:

SEC Filing:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4291132&Type=HTML

From Daring Fireball:
"More or less, Jobs just had 10 million shares vest, and he sold just enough of them to the pay the taxes on all of them. If he hadn’t sold any, he’d have had to pay about $300 million in taxes out of his pocket."
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/march#wed-22-jobs_aapl

From AppleInsider:
"In order to meet his tax obligations on the 10M restricted shares, which vested this month, Jobs elected to net-share settle -- essentially allowing Apple to withhold and pay to authorities the portion of the 10M shares that would meet his tax payment requirements."
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1621



Or he could simply do the responsible thing and just handle this issue immediately to avoid any hassles from the IRS and/or avoid any out of pocket expenses, as had been speculated to be the case from the get-go and now seems to be overwhelmingly clear is exactly what he had done.



It would be uneventful were it not for people who don't do at least a little responsible research into publicly available information before they post paranoid conspiracy theories.
Exactly.

these people are so easily riled up.

If Steve took a **** they would have something to say about how that affects Apple.

[MacQuest]

Exactly.

these people are so easily riled up.

If Steve took a **** they would have something to say about how that affects Apple.

:D Tell me about it. :rolleyes:

But you gotta love the classic disclaimer that leads right into the paranoid conspiracy theory:

As uneventful as it likely is, observers will always wonder
why large quantities of stock or options are sold, especially by the CEO
of the said company.

I'm not picking on DMann per se, it's just that I despise propoganda, disinformation, and irresponsible posting/reporting.

Speculating on rumor sites is not the same thing, as there is rarely any verifiable proof either way.

That was not the case in this instance though, as there was proof to the contrary of the "JOBS IS SELLING HIS STOCK, APPLE IS GOING DOWN!!!" speculation from the beginning.

[mygoldens]

Steve dumps stock, Macbook Pro problems, reports that Ipod sales are sufferring........


I think there might be some trouble on the horizon...............:(

[technicolor]

Steve dumps stock, Macbook Pro problems, reports that Ipod sales are sufferring........


I think there might be some trouble on the horizon...............:(

Okay go buy a PC then.

[MacQuest]

Steve dumps stock...

Steve sells less than half [only 1/2 of 1% of Apple's total stock BTW, and no that's not a typo] of his total recently vested stock [awarded to him in 2003 as a stock option along with his outrageous $1 a year salary... again, that's not a typo] to satisfy a completely expected IRS demand with no suspicious implications whatsoever:

From Daring Fireball:
"More or less, Jobs just had 10 million shares vest, and he sold just enough of them to the pay the taxes on all of them. If he hadn’t sold any, he’d have had to pay about $300 million in taxes out of his pocket."
http://daringfireball.net/linked/200...d-22-jobs_aapl

From AppleInsider:
"In order to meet his tax obligations on the 10M restricted shares, which vested this month, Jobs elected to net-share settle -- essentially allowing Apple to withhold and pay to authorities the portion of the 10M shares that would meet his tax payment requirements."
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1621

Macbook Pro problems...

Sporadic 1st product version issues? That's unheard of! :rolleyes:

Tell me, what are the miCrapsoft winBlows box manufacturer's excuses for putting out [P]iece of [C]raps on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. "revisions"?

Do yourself a favor and pick up any copy of "Consumer Reports" [or even often times, PC Magazine] that has the results for best computer manufacturer, and tell me which one is consistently in a distant 1st place [from the 2nd place winner aka loser] year after year [since at least 2002] in the areas of quality of product, least amount of DOA [dead on arrival] equipment, highest customer satisfaction, lowest maintenance, highest resale value, lowest TCO [total cost of ownership], etc., etc., etc...

If you don't have time to research the truth yourself because you're too tied up posting false propoganda, alarmist comments on threads that you don't read the posts on, then I'll save you some time by giving you a hint as to which computer manufacturer is, again, consistently the distant 1st place winner:

It starts with an "A" ... and ends in "PPLE"

reports that Ipod sales are sufferring...

OH NO!!!

Did the iPod fall under 80% marketshare?! I'm sure that this report that iPod sales are "suffering" spells certain doom for the poor iPod line and it's billion dollar 3rd party accessory industry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/technology/03ipod.html?ei=5088&en=91f4e87dd848693f&ex=1296622800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1143303843-5grM/acA3lV0xwhQDGeBpg

This is almost as bad as when the iPod fell from 92% to only 87.3% marketshare a year and a half ago:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1712064,00.asp

I sure hope Apple doesn't release any new Pod and/or even Mac products in the near future. They need to start saving their money because, as Wall Street "ANALysts" have repeatedly reported since... forever, Apple is going out of business.

I think there might be some trouble on the horizon...............:(

If Apple's new revolutionary products and services that we'll be seeing over the next year [and beyond, starting very soon] mean that there's gonna be "some trouble on the horizon", then I want Apple to have A LOT MORE of that trouble and for them to reach that horizon PRONTO!

BTW, did you know that...

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

[gwangung]

And don't give me the "bill gates is a philanthropist" BS either. A real philanthropist would have done good things like starting the "bill & Melinda gates Foundation" without hesitation and before [he was a billionaire prior to 2001] being urged to do so by his legal counsel and PR representatives immediately after his companies' first anti-competitive/monopoly conviction in 2001, in order to win some public favor and not look [i]so blatantly like the kniving little b**ch that he is.

Bill Gates IS a philanthropist. He started his foundations in the early 1990s and was giving substantial stakes of his wealth at that time (in the hundreds of millions). And he was giving out money in the 1980s as well, before Microsoft went public.

Don't give out BS yourself.

[BTW....did you know that Gates is one of the few people who gives substantially before they hit their prime philanthropic years? Most people don't give until their mid 50s]

[Stridder44]

OMG JOB$ IS SELLING HIS STOCKS!!!?!? TEH SKY IS FALLING!!11! EVERYONE PANIC!1!1!!!!1!one THIs MUST B TEH END OF APPLE!!!!!!!!!!!1

[MacQuest]

Bill Gates IS a philanthropist. He started his foundations in the early 1990s and was giving substantial stakes of his wealth at that time (in the hundreds of millions).

Oh, I apologize. It was during [not after as I incorrectly stated in my previous post]miCrapsofts trial by the U.S.'s Federal Department of Justice for anti-competitive/un-ethical/anti-capitalist [aka communist]/monopolistic behavior that bill was urged by his legal counsel and PR representatves to do something public that would win him some "brownie points" and that's when he reluctantly agreed and did. So no, he didn't start his foundation in the early 1990's:

[from the bill and Melinda gates Foundation's website]
"...In 2000, they created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation..."
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/

You see, he wouldn't have had time in the early 1990's to be philanthropic because that was the time that he was too busy stabbing IBM in the back by stalling development of their OS/2 and still "reverse-engineering" [stealing] Mac OS's form and fuctionality while simultaneously and covertly creating winBlows, when he was telling IBM that he was working on their project which he had been contracted to do.

I like the way the forced, fake philanthropist tried to "spin" the fact that he "saved" Apple by "giving" it $150 million dollars upon SJ's return in '97.

That was a court settlement for his theft of Mac OS that, in his typical low-life fashion, came with the requirement that all Apple Macintosh computers come pre-loaded with "m$ internet exploder " for the following 5 years. At that time, he and miCrapsoft had just forced Netscape Navigator out of the web browser market in true monopolistic fashion by pre-loading ieX on winBlows, not allowing that it be "uninstalled" properly, and ensuring that any sucessful uninstall of ieX in favor of Netscape Navigator would de-stabilize winBlows, reqiring a full re-install of it, thereby re-installing ieX.

Or did you not "get" the significance of SJ and Apple giving "exploder" the boot in favor of Safari at MWSF '03, [i]immediately after that settlement's agreement expired in late '02?

And he was giving out money in the 1980s as well, before Microsoft went public.

I smell... BS!

In the early '80's he was too busy kissing SJ and Apple's arse to get access to Mac OS's code, which he said he needed in order to create better software for the Mac. This went on until m$ introduced winBlows in '85.

aftre that and into the early 90's, he was busy two-facing IBM so that he could later kill their joint OS/2 project by stalling and finally ceasing microShaft's contracted part in the development of that project, thus leaving IBM hanging.

http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html
"1990 - The Schism

In 1990, IBM and Microsoft were still working together on the development of OS/2. Microsoft, however, had found that Windows 3.0 - released in May 1990 - generated more revenue for them and therefore allotted increasingly more resource to Windows and correspondingly less to OS/2.

By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."

As we all know, he later proved to be the un-inspired thief that he is by "reverse-engineering" Mac OS into winBlows '95 and, having sabatoged IBM/microSlop's OS/2, attempting to quietly release it in the Eastern hemisphere in the early-mid 90's, with the hopes that by the time that SJ and Apple found out about it, it would be too late.

He believed that quickly gaining dominant marketshare by licensing his junky, insecure Mac OS clone and OS/2 hybrid would buy him the time that he needed to later "do it right" and build another OS from the ground up at a later date, which they are now proving they are incapable of doing with Vista. He obviously achieved the dominant marketshare portion of his scheme, but at the cost of quality control which is now coming back to haunt him :D. However, he is proving incapable of holding onto that marketshare by developing a [i]truly new and better OS than the marketshare "place holder" that is winBlows.

In large part, wB '95's success came by selling everyone on the fact that miCrapsoft had placed an emphasis both on winBlows' "compatability" [aka generic lack of innovation, read my sig below] AND security. Well, here's what a relevant senior executive at miCrapsoft had to say in regards to their initial efforts to implement security into wB '95 [basically they placed no emphasis on it whatsoever, but it didn't stop them from selling customers on the fact that they did]. Whatever it takes for silly billy to peddle his junk, I guess:

"David Aucsmith is Microsoft's security architect, and he came to London this week to ask forgiveness for his company's former sins."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3492922.stm

Don't give out BS yourself.

Just the facts man, just the facts. Don't believe bill's BS or m$'s propoganda yourself. True knowledge like mine is power. False beliefs/opinions like yours, are a disservice.

[BTW....did you know that Gates is one of the few people who gives substantially before they hit their prime philanthropic years? Most people don't give until their mid 50s]

That's because most people don't have the financial means to do anything significantly philanthropic until their later years. bill made a quick fortune in his "younger" years, but they were ill-gotten gains acquired through a series of innovative [for a thief], dishonorable actions [be-friending then backstabbing and stealling] over more than a decades time.

I'd rather be a $4.4 billionaire with unparalelled respect for being an innovative genius like Steve Jobs, than be a $50+ billionaire and regarde as a talentless geek and thief like bill gates.

All that said, I'm not saying that bill gates isn't a philanthropist now. Just that he wasn't a philanthropist until he was forced to be one, and that he was only able to "become" one because of the fortune he had made through his thieving tactics.

[gwangung]

Oh, I apologize. It was during miCrapsofts trial by the US's Federal Department of Justice for anti-competitive/monopolistic behavior that bill was urged by his legal counsel and PR representatves to do something public that would win him some "brownie points" and that's when he reluctantly agreed and did. So no, he didn't start his foundation in the early 1990's:

[from the bill and Melinda gates Foundation's website]
"...In 2000, they created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation..."
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/

You see, he wouldn't have had time in the early 1990's to be philanthropic because that was the time that he was too busy stabbing IBM in the back by stalling development of their OS/2 and still "reverse-engineering" [stealing] Mac OS's form and fuctionality while simultaneously and covertly creating winBlows, when he was telling IBM that he was working on their project which he had been contracted to do.

I like the way the forced, fake philanthropist tried to "spin" the fact that he "saved" Apple by "giving" it $150 million dollars upon SJ's return in '97.

That was a court settlement for his theft of Mac OS that, in his typical low-life fashion, came with the requirement that all Apple Macintosh computers come pre-loaded with "m$ internet exploder" for the following 5 years. At that time, he and miCrapsoft had just forced Netsacpe Navigator out of the web browser market in true monopolistic fashion by pre-loading ieX on winBlows, not allowing that it be "uninstalled" properly, and ensuring that any sucessful uninstall of ieX in favor of Netscape Navigator would de-stabilize winBlows, reqiring a full re-install of it, thereby re-installing ieX.

Or did you not "get" the significance of SJ and Apple giving "exploder" the boot in favor of Safari at MWSF '03, immediately after that settlement's agreement expired in late '02?



I smell... BS!

In the early '80's he was too busy kissing SJ and Apple's arse to get access to Mac OS's code, which he said he needed in order to create better software for the Mac. This went on until m$ introduced winBlows in '85.

aftre that and into the early 90's, he was busy two-facing IBM so that he could later kill their joint OS/2 project by stalling and finally ceasing microShaft's contracted part in the development of that project, thus leaving IBM hanging.

http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html
"1990 - The Schism

In 1990, IBM and Microsoft were still working together on the development of OS/2. Microsoft, however, had found that Windows 3.0 - released in May 1990 - generated more revenue for them and therefore allotted increasingly more resource to Windows and correspondingly less to OS/2.

By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."

As we all know, he later proved to be the un-inspired thief that he is by "reverse-engineering" Mac OS into winBlows '95 and, having sabatoged IBM/microSlop's OS/2, attempting to quietly release it in the Eastern hemisphere in the early-mid 90's, with the hopes that by the time that SJ and Apple found out about it, it would be too late.

He believed that quickly gaining dominant marketshare by licensing his junky, insecure Mac OS clone and OS/2 hybrid would buy him the time that he needed to later "do it right" and build another OS from the ground up at a later date, which they are now proving they are incapable of doing with Vista. He obviously achieved the dominant marketshare portion of his scheme, but at the cost of quality control which is now coming back to haunt him :D. However, he is proving incapable of holding onto that marketshare by developing a [i]truly new and better OS than the marketshare "place holder" that is winBlows.

In large part, wB '95's success came by selling everyone on the fact that miCrapsoft had placed an emphasis both on winBlows' "compatability" [aka generic lack of innovation, read my sig below] AND security. Well, here's what a relevant senior executive at miCrapsoft had to say in regards to their initial efforts to implement security into wB '95 [basically they placed no emphasis on it whatsoever, but it didn't stop them from selling customers on the fact that they did]. Whatever it takes for silly billy to peddle his junk, I guess:

"David Aucsmith is Microsoft's security architect, and he came to London this week to ask forgiveness for his company's former sins."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3492922.stm



Just the facts man, just the facts. Don't believe bill's BS or m$'s propoganda yourself. True knowledge like mine is power. False beliefs/opinions like yours, are a disservice.



That's because most people don't have the financial means to do anything significantly philanthropic until their later years. bill made a quick fortune in his "younger" years, but they were ill-gotten gains acquired through a series of innovative [for a thief], dishonorable actions [be-friending then backstabbing and stealling] over more than a decades time.

I'd rather be a $4.4 billionaire with unparalelled respect for being an innovative genius like Steve Jobs, than be a $50+ billionaire and regarde as a talentless geek and thief like bill gates.

Son, I was working for organizations that got checks from Bill Gates in the 1980s and 1990s. I can go downstairs and get the Xeroxes of the checks.

ANd you're an extremely sloppy researcher. The Bill and Melinda Gates FOundation is a merger of the various foundations he had in the early 1990s. Look it up. Try http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2907 for starters.

And sorry, but you really don't know much about the psychology of major givers. Gates is unlike many earlier philanthropists, who generally waited until their 50s to give away part of their wealth, even though they generated great wealth in their early years. For example, here's something from United Way. "United Way of King County Wednesday announced receiving the largest single personal contribution in the organization's 67-year history. Bill Gates, Seattle native and chairman of the Redmond-based Microsoft Corp., has donated $100,000 to the 1988 United Way fund-raising campaign. This year's contribution is part of a $1 million pledge to be credited to King County United Way campaigns over the next six to eight years." Note the date on that.

Those are the FACTS. You'd be well advised to using them instead of making accusations you can't back up.

[MacQuest]

Son, I was working for organizations that got checks from Bill Gates in the 1980s and 1990s. I can go downstairs and get the Xeroxes of the checks.

ANd you're an extremely sloppy researcher. The Bill and Melinda Gates FOundation is a merger of the various foundations he had in the early 1990s. Look it up. Try http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2907 for starters.

And sorry, but you really don't know much about the psychology of major givers. Gates is unlike many earlier philanthropists, who generally waited until their 50s to give away part of their wealth, even though they generated great wealth in their early years.

Those are the FACTS. You'd be well advised to using them instead of making accusations you can't back up.

Yo kid-

Up to 2002, I was a Xerox internal and external network administrator [Mac, winBlows, Novell, Linux] and yes, I've been to XDU in Leesburg, Virginia on several occasions, just a short way from CIA headquarters where they have a museum in the West building where they have the actual very first mouse, GUI, "imagers" and lots of other Xerox inventions that came out of Xerox and PARC over the past century on display.

You know what else they have there? Professors who have been with Xerox since the early '70's who train employees from all over the world and who like to tell the stories of young Steve and little billy's [and their companies] antics as many of them, and their colleagues from other technologically innovative companies such as IBM, had been involved in those proceedings and negotiations first-hand throughout those years. Boy did they get a kick out of playing with my brand new 500Mhz Titanium PowerBook with Apple's brand new Mac OS X 10.1 Cheetah loaded on it. Oh, how they enjoyed playing with Terminal and reminiscing about their "Nixer" [Unix] days.

Do you know what the common consensus about bill is amongst that elder community? That he was a weasel then, and a bigger one now. Sure, the very public side of his current philanthropy somewhat subdues his criminal activity for some of us in the know [not me though], and even hides it from the majority of the public who aren't knowing, but the fact still remains that a thief, is a thief, is a thief.

Oh and I'm sure you meant to say copies, not xeroxes. It just sounds... uneducated. Xerox went to extreme legal measures to keep other companies from using the term "making a Xerox" when referring to "making a copy."

So while I can hand you your own rear end when it comes to the history of technology as I have been involved with it on all platforms for the past 16 years and been surrounded by the people who have shaped that technology for more than twice my 16 years, I thank you for clarifying that bill had been involved in at least some philanthropic activity prior to his foundation being founded [now which do I believe?] in 2000 as posted on the foundation's own website, or possibly 1999 as posted in the website you linked to, the fact still remains that...

bill would never have been able to continue the philanthropic activity that his father and mother started had he not had the money to do so.

And how did he make his money? By being the most deceitful, yet successful, thief of our time.

Those are the facts and I'm backing them up.

[gwangung]

Yo kid-

Up to 2002, I was a Xerox internal and external network administrator [Mac, winBlows, Novell, Linux] and yes, I've been to XDU in Leesburg, Virginia on several occasions, just a short way from CIA headquarters where they have a museum in the West building where they have the actual very first mouse, GUI, "imagers" and lots of other Xerox inventions that came out of Xerox and PARC over the past century on display.

You know what else they have there? Professors who have been with Xerox since the early '70's who train employees from all over the world and who like to tell the stories of young Steve and little billy's [and their companies] antics as many of them, and their colleagues from other technologically innovative companies such as IBM, had been involved in those proceedings and negotiations first-hand throughout those years. Boy did they get a kick out of playing with my brand new 500Mhz Titanium PowerBook with Apple's brand new Mac OS X 10.1 Cheetah loaded on it. Oh, how they enjoyed playing with Terminal and reminiscing about their "Nixer" [Unix] days.

Do you know what the common consensus about bill is amongst that elder community? That he was a weasel then, and a bigger one now. Sure, the very public side of his current philanthropy somewhat subdues his criminal activity for some of us in the know [not me though], and even hides it from the majority of the public who aren't knowing, but the fact still remains that a thief, is a thief, is a thief.

Oh and I'm sure you meant to say copies, not xeroxes. It just sounds... uneducated. Xerox went to extreme legal measures to keep other companies from using the term "making a Xerox" when referring to "making a copy."

So while I can hand you your own rear end when it comes to the history of technology as I have been involved with it on all platforms for the past 16 years and been surrounded by the people who have shaped that technology for more than twice my 16 years, I thank you for clarifying that bill had been involved in at least some philanthropic activity prior to his foundation being founded [now which do I believe?] in 2000 as posted on the foundation's own website, or possibly 1999 as posted in the website you linked to, the fact still remains that...

bill would never have been able to continue the philanthropic activity that his father and mother started had he not had the money to do so.

And how did he make his money? By being the most deceitful, yet successful, thief of our time.

Those are the facts and I'm backing them up.

I'm not saying he's not a weasel. Nor am I saying that his actions at Microsoft weren't unethical. Nor am I saying that his philanthropy makes up for his actions. And I'm certainly not disagreeing on your overall assessment on his character.

I AM saying that you got your facts on his philanthropy wrong. And got them so wrong that folks could naturally question your credibility.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think it's better to get ALL your facts right when constructing an argument.

[MacQuest]

I'm not saying he's not a weasel. Nor am I saying that his actions at Microsoft weren't unethical. Nor am I saying that his philanthropy makes up for his actions. And I'm certainly not disagreeing on your overall assessment on his character.

I AM saying that you got your facts on his philanthropy wrong. And got them so wrong that folks could naturally question your credibility.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think it's better to get ALL your facts right when constructing an argument.

You are correct about getting ALL facts right before constructing an argument, and I admittedly had a lot more facts about his unethical activity in business than his ethical ones in terms of humane activities.

Our argument [mostly mine though] seems to be a classic one in which the total assessment is either black or white, but sometimes there is a shade of grey in there... although I maintain that his grey is a darker shade because of how he got to the worlds stage, mainly on the blood, seat and tears of others who poured their heart, souls, and imagination into products and/or services that were later "absorbed" by miCrapsoft because of their overwhelming wealth, which was obtained illegally, and with which came "power" and in their case, the abuse of said power.

The fact that you acknowledge his less than admirable business ethic, or lack thereof, caught me off guard because usually the people who defend him by saying he is a philanthropist in humane activities, completely allow that to override any wrong that he and his company have done, which is a lot to override. Basically I thought you were one of those bill and/or miCrapsoft "apologists" which i just described.

Nonetheless, as I did in my previous post when I thanked you for enlightening me in regards to his philanthropic activiy, I apologize for not having known as much as I should have about that side before "poo-pooing" all of it with a sweeping generalization of his overall character based primarily on his business character.