Posted on 10/21/2011 7:07:59 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
A walk through which was paid for, is now equivalent to board membership? OK.
It would be nice if all these Steve Jobs biography quotes could be collected where they could all be read in one place....book form would be nice.
No, achilles2000, you did not. You are now dancing, trying to rewrite what you wrote. And common shares do indeed have an issue value. There was no option to buy 100,000 shares, Apple gave them 1,000,000 shares of pre-IPO shares at $7 a share in exchange for the visits AND the rights to use what they learned on the visits. This has been reported many times. That was the "par value" of the stock at the time it was transferred and the value listed in the agreement Apple gave the judge that resulted in the dismissal of the Xerox lawsuit.
They are not. The Xerox patents suits were tossed out in 1993. You are making things up as you go along.
Look, we have the principal actor proudly admitting that he stole ideas. We also have a direct and massive beneficiary (many millions) of said event, with both professional and personal reasons to know the Apple players intimately, and NOTHING to gain by so reporting who called it "stolen" to her brother in my presence. I knew her well enough to have ghost written a term paper for for that person. And no, I won't give you that person's name.
And you might also give the entire quotation of Steve Jobs showing he was quoting some other great artist! The fact still remains that Jobs negotiated a deal with Xerox management PRIOR to the visits to PARC to see and USE what the saw there and PAID Xerox Handsomely for the rights to what they saw and learned. A later Xerox CEO, ignorant of the terms of that agreement was the one who brought the lawsuit against Apple, which was promptly tossed out when that agreement was entered into evidence in pre trial discovery. Xerox had SOLD Apple the rights to what little they had used, and it was actually very little.
Apple did it legally, and above board, stating their purpose and intentions, to an organization whose purpose was general research to advance computer knowledge and technology. Xerox sold that knowledge and technology. . . They did not necessarily keep it in house.
You have the gall to claim a high moral standing after claiming you ghost wrote her term paper???? BAH!
The only one “dancing” here is you. You didn’t read my posts carefully, and now you are making things up. In this post you state that common shares have an “issue” value. Before you said they had a “face” value. In fact, so you don’t flail around any more, common shares in an IPO are “priced”, and that pricing is simply the price at which they are first offered by the underwriter on the day of the IPO.
You don’t understand finance, although you appear to have some acquaintance with the other issues. In any event, I’ve read the thread and have concluded that over all it amounts to little more than a food fight between Apple haters and Microsoft haters. Because I don’t fall into either camp, I don’t see any real value in continuing.
Here is a Malcolm Gladwell piece that confirms what I said about the stock, and it may help you with the Microsofties: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
God forgive me. That was funny!
I don't understand finance??? My degree is in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance with a minor in Economics. Sheesh! As for the "face" or "par" value of the pre-IPO stock involved, the articles of incorporation of Apple establish a par value of $7 a share. Apple was big on giving stock as a form of compensation in lieu of cash. The only way to evaluate the compensation as a taxable event was to price it at an arbitrary price since it was not traded. Hence the arbitrary $7 per share based loosely on the number of shares authorized and the amount invested in the company. . . Once it is publicly traded, the stock's Par Value becomes irrelevant as the value of the stock is set by the market at any particular moment.
Many stocks today are issued with no par value at all, unless the state of incorporation requires it.
Incidentally, pre-IPO companies who wish to use stock grants as compensation who don’t have par valued stocks can still do so; they just have to base the valuation on the current financials of the company. Not as simple, but doable.
I hope that he forgives me too. :-)
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.