Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stock Options Scandal Rocks McAfee

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-escaping-that-worm dept.

78

narramissic writes "ITworld is reporting that in the wake of a stock-options investigation, executive shake-up is under way at security software vendor McAfee, including the firing of the company's president. From the article: 'McAfee announced Wednesday that it has terminated the employment of its president, Kevin Weiss. The company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman George Samenuk is retiring from those roles and the board of directors has appointed Dale Fuller as interim CEO.'"

cancel ×

78 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Antivirus need antivirus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392749)

McAfee should just install Linux instead of relying on Windoze patches...

I'm sensing a pattern here. (2, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392769)

I'm sensing a pattern here of rampant abuse-of-privilege in the tech industry powerhouses here. HP, McAfee ... who knows what other companies have some stinkers in the board?

This might go a long way to explaining why the user constantly gets shafted with their purchases :) And what's with all that pre-installed software? Does anyone actually make use of that junk?

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392877)

Well it is an issue of years of abuse. And lately there is a crackdown on such abuses. I will expect more in the future as the feds get around to invistigating other companies.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (3, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392941)

I don't see why you limit it to the tech industries. Almost by definition the qualities needed to rise to the top include an ability to 'bend the rules' to achieve results. It's like finding out that a politician is a power hungry bastard; what did you expect. After all, if it weren't like that we wouldn't need all those industry watchdogs.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394841)

there are lots of theories that to be a top level director goes hand in hand with being a sociopath, here's one result from google [businesspundit.com] .

I've worked for many different companies, privately owned and public, and I would disagree with this a somewhat; but I would agree that being ruthless and totally pragmatic is an absolute necessity, as is a willingness to play god with people's lives.

I think it's the culture of an organisation which can encourage that sort of ruthlessness, I saw it in one employer (who were very ruthless when they cut 20 people earlier this year, including me), by the way they dealt with people who were "let go".

Apple highest profile? (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392995)

Perhaps the SEC will pursue a high profile company president like Jobs.
Apple has been dancing around this problem recently, including a firing.
Then again as Spitzer has found, the SEC passed on punishing most corporate crime.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392997)

I'm also sensing a pattern -- a pattern of anti-semitism. Kevin Weiss would never have been pursued of this if he wasnt Jewish. Its 1940s Germany all over again.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (1)

riff420 (810435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393787)

As a Jew, I agree.. just not with you. Please shut the fuck up before you make Mel Gibson appear intelligent.

Not quite a board problem (2, Insightful)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393209)

...some stinkers in the board?

You couldn't be sensing a pattern because this isn't a problem with the board. If you read the article you'll find that the problems aren't in the board of directors. They're with executive level management appointed by the board (in this case, the President). If there had been a problem with the board, it would have been extremely strange. In public companies, board meetings literally are gatherings of shareholders who vote their shares on certain issues and also appoint or fire officers. Though it is almost always a Bad Idea [tm], with smaller companies some people can have dual roles as board members and as company managers. In the article, it says that George Samenuk was in just such a situation as the company's CEO and Chairman (kind of a big deal because both are important positions). But the stock-issue problems didn't involve him, he resigned because they occurred while he held those positions.

The problem is not that a board of directors was up to no good, it was that an officer of the company--President Kevin Weiss--was acting unilaterally and breaking all kinds of SEC rules by granting questionable stock options in the company.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (3, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393417)

Well, recently it came to the attention the authorities that a number of companies where granting stock options and (either immediatly or later) backdating them to a date when the stock price was low (ie, it was as if the options had been granted at a date when the stock price was lower, and thus the exercise price on the option was said low price from the chosen date).

This is illegal.

So the authorities started investigating and lo-and-behold, quite a number of tech companies had been backdating their options or commmiting other types of irregularities with their options.

<RANT>
Surprise, surprise - guess that during the last market bust a lot of managers on technology companies where patting each other on their backs and saying to each other "Its not your fault that the share price is going down, it's an industry wide problem and you should still be rewarded for all your hard work". I'm sure they conveniently forgot the fat bonuses they got when the stock prices were going up, even though that was not due to the success of the company but instead due to the bull market.

Now they got caught. I'm sure the favorite excuses are:
- Everybody else was doing it.
- It would be impossible to retain our best people without doing it.
</RANT>

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (3, Insightful)

koehn (575405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393815)

Well, recently it came to the attention the authorities that a number of companies where granting stock options and (either immediatly or later) backdating them to a date when the stock price was low (ie, it was as if the options had been granted at a date when the stock price was lower, and thus the exercise price on the option was said low price from the chosen date).

This is illegal.


No, it's not. It's only illegal if you fail to disclose the backdated grants to your shareholders. If you disclose it correctly, it's legal under current SEC regulations.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (1)

Atroxodisse (307053) | more than 7 years ago | (#16395527)

Exactly. It's not illegal. The company also has to mark the difference in stock value as an expense.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16400211)

Furthur continuing the pattern:

Now every-company is investigating and firing their management. Excuse: Everybody else is doing it. It would be impossible to maintain our image without doing it.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393617)

Hell, they can probably afford the bonuses and stock options just from the rebates they have swindled people out of over the years. It seems like about half the time, they find some reason not to pay me back. (the best one I thought, was they said they never received it from me and then would not accept the copies as they have to have originals...)

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (1)

flyboy974 (624054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393669)

The CEO of CNet stepped down today as well because of stock option problems.

And in other news... (1)

_anomaly_ (127254) | more than 7 years ago | (#16395901)

...McAfee Inc.'s stock is... up [yahoo.com] ?

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393811)

>I'm sensing a pattern here of rampant abuse-of-privilege in the tech industry powerhouses here.

The force is strong with this one; I will take B3ryllium as my apprentice and train him in the ways of the force.

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16395137)

This might go a long way to explaining why the user constantly gets shafted with their purchases :) And what's with all that pre-installed software? Does anyone actually make use of that junk?

NOPE
ctrl-alt-delete format re-install dooh dah dooh dah
Free Corporate versions for us all the dooh dahh day

Re:I'm sensing a pattern here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16402903)

EYE BEE M

Trust me, big things.

Regret (1)

slidersv (972720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392803)

"I regret that some of the stock option problems identified by the Special Committee occurred on my watch,"
Well, regretting won't fix the problem, and neither will his ousting.

Re:Regret (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392901)

I admit, I have never gotten the idea that the first response to a large screw up is for the CEO to retire (IE, gets fired with a nice big severance package). Is it really their fault?

Is it the CEO's job to make sure that some one doesn't do something squiffy with their stock? I always thought that was the job of security/layers/other people, not the CEO. Doesn't the CEO come up with plans for how to make the company grow/turn a proffit/recover from a scandle?

oh well, I guess I am just not cut out for Corporate America.

Re:Regret (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393329)

Two things to consider:

* Most public companies, including this one, are not run as democracies. Just as the President is ultimately responsible for all actions of the military, the CEO is ultimately responsible for all business practices in his/her company. Knowing lots of other companies are being investigated a CEO can demand the CFO or others perform an internal investigation and fix any questionable practices. Since stock handling is so critical to public companies it's not unreasonable to expect CEOs to pay close attention to how stock options are handled.

* The CEO is the most visible public target in any corporate scandal. Even if someone else was the cause of the problem the public will feel something was accomplished by ousting the CEO. This is especially true after the CEO of Enron was found guilty.

Yes, yes and yes (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393397)

Is it the CEO's job to make sure that some one doesn't do something squiffy with their stock?


Yes.

I always thought that was the job of security/layers/other people, not the CEO.


Certainly, but blame is placed on the highest level manager anyway (no matter how fair or unfair it may be). In the same sense that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States can be held accountable for the actions of military personnel, the Chief Executive Officer can be held accountable for the actions of the people under him.

Doesn't the CEO come up with plans for how to make the company grow/turn a proffit/recover from a scandle?


Ideally, yes. But these people are independently wealthy and their interest in running the company tends to wane after the first problem crops up. Sometimes it's just helpful to turn a new page and start over with new officers when there's a scandal.

Re:Yes, yes and yes (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16397939)

> In the same sense that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States can be held accountable for the actions of military personnel

Thank you. Best laugh I've had all week.

Re:Yes, yes and yes (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16398589)

I know right. I felt dirty after typing that. It's technically true, though ;-)

Translation (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393517)

"I regret that some of the stock option problems identified by the Special Committee occurred on my watch,"
Well, regretting won't fix the problem, and neither will his ousting.

Translated: "I regret that this came to light while I was still around. Next time I hope to be out of the country before the federales find there was no actual pea in our exclusive executive shell game."

Seriously, what attracts people to these jobs? Money.

What do they try to get even more of than the large, by global standards, obscene salaries? Money.

What always irks me is these are often not the people who started the company, but some pinstripe variety of parasite which comes in, directs things around for maximum stock value and then gets out with as much lucre as they can get.

It's the way it is. Don't invest in companies which have overpaid CEOs and get your money if you have to work for one, get your money in your paycheck, not options.

Back dating options again? (1)

pauljuno (998497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392841)

Looks like someone's been back dating options again. At least in this case the management teams is being held accountable. They're not just saying "oops", like Apple and the like. Corporate America needs more directors who hold management accountable for behavior like this.

A little-known fact... (3, Funny)

jense (978975) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392857)

These gentlemen were caught by McAfee's internal-use-only feature, "Option Blocker."

Re:A little-known fact... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393619)

In case you are tempted to install Option Blocker at you own company, it should be noted that "Option Blocker" sucks up 30% of your cash flow and only catches 82% of known backdated options.

remember the 90s bubble (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393005)

it popped because of this... WorldCom, Enron, and all the others were playing with stocks, thanks to rules implemented in the 90s.

Instead of earning a regular wage (and getting taxed for it), they were given stocks which encouraged the holders to do what they could to cook the books...

Re:remember the 90s bubble (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393147)

WorldCom, Enron, and all the others were playing with stocks, thanks to rules implemented in the 90s.

Err, no. Those scandals had absolutely nothing to do with the backdated options that are at issue here.

I wish I could be a CEO that get's fired. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393075)

Then I could get a 10 or 20 million dollar pay-off!

That always gets me: we fuck up and get fired, we get nothing; a CEO gets fired; they get a wind-fall!

Re:I wish I could be a CEO that get's fired. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16394027)

Yes, but sometimes CEOs get a jail sentence when they fuck up!

Re:I wish I could be a CEO that get's fired. (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394713)

And workers can't? I think stealing is stealing, unless you are rich and can afford a lawyer who will 'set you free.'

Re:I wish I could be a CEO that get's fired. (1)

jerkychew (80913) | more than 7 years ago | (#16395397)

Always? Tell that to WorldCom's ex CEO [cnn.com] and CFO.

Re:I wish I could be a CEO that get's fired. (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16400301)

That always gets me: we fuck up and get fired, we get nothing; a CEO gets fired; they get a wind-fall!

CEOs are hired to be fired. If things go well, they get credit, if things go poorly they get blamed and possibly fired. CEOs (and others) know this when they take a job and it's why they almost always have a severance package in place as part of their contract. You see, most executives aren't hired to do actual work like us peons.

The Crux of the Matter (5, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393143)

McAfee set up a special committee of independent directors to look into the company's practices of stock-option granting. The committee was assisted by independent counsel and forensic accountants. Based on the committee's findings, McAfee now expects to have to restate financial results over a 10-year period to record pre-tax non-cash charges of between US$100 million and $150 million for stock-based compensation.

Which is where the problem lies in any company that hands out stock options. The trick of "back dating" options so CEOs can cash in on higher returns, coupled with a CEO's knowledge of events in the company, give them unprecedented power to make money off the company's stock while simultaneously causing the company to slide toward oblivion. No one can claim McAfee has exactly been tearing up the anti-virus market of late. Now, having to restate earnings, the stock is threatened with a nose-dive and the other investors are left holding the bag while the defrocked CEOs and Presidents get to walk away with large sums of cash.

Re:The Crux of the Matter (1)

bhalter80 (916317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393535)

There was a magical invention pioneered by lawyers to deal with just this situation and to rectify it while earning them millions. The name of this is "shareholder lawsuit" The CEOs of these places have a legal responsability to protect the investments made to the best of their abilities and in most cases that extends to making a buck any way then can. If the shareholders can demonstrate that the board/CEO acted with some other interest in mind the shareholders can recover (unfortunately) some of this cash.

Re:The Crux of the Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16394333)

If the shareholders can demonstrate that the board/CEO acted with some other interest in mind the shareholders can recover (unfortunately) some of this cash.

Why just some? Why not go for the full $100-$150 million of ill-gotten gains, plus punitive damages? Surely there is some greedy lawyer out there to pursue it on behalf of the shareholders, to present the case in front of a jury. I say, bankrupt these thieves if necessary. As a shareholder, enough is enough, and I'm fed up with this crap.

This didn't used to be illegal (sort of) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393149)

In the aftermath of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. our legislators started to look more closely at how corporations are run and how their executives are remunerated. The result, among other things, is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act [wikipedia.org]

TFA didn't say it but it sounds like they backdated some stock options. The company I work for may give me stock options. That means I can buy stocks at the market price determined on a certain later day. If the value of the stock goes up after that then I will buy the stocks and resell them at a profit. If the value of the stocks doesn't go up, I don't have to buy them. I can't lose. Backdating means that they will date the options on a day when their price was particularly low. It is called backdating because it is done after the fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_backdating [wikipedia.org] Backdating options is basically fraud or maybe forgery because you are making it look like a document was produced at a time other than when it was produced.

Re:This didn't used to be illegal (sort of) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393351)

Backdating options was never legal.

Re:This didn't used to be illegal (sort of) (2, Informative)

durdur (252098) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394263)

Right, it was never legal.

Sarbannes-Oxley requires company officers to personally vouch for the accuracy of financial statements. This has caused companies to put in much more stringent internal controls so that they can ensure accurate reporting. But this doesn't mean filing inaccurate reports was allowed, previously. Nor was back-dating option grants.

--Jon

The question is enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16395437)

There are many things that, strictly speaking, are illegal. If nobody is enforcing the laws then it doesn't matter; you won't be prosecuted for doing them.

What Enron, Worldcom, etc. did was focus people's attention on some things that people used to get away with. Backdating options was almost never prosecuted. By the time that the authorities started prosecuting, it had become something like standard practice. The result is that there are lots of people to prosecute.

One has to wonder... (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393167)

If the anti-Microsoft newspaper ad was a diversion for a week from this bomb.

LOLOL Goody! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393177)

ah theres nothing like the orgasmic delight of open source fetishists when they here about the evil corporate software companies having a bit of a scandal. See the bigger picture though, if these evil corps go outta business, the open source fetishists will have to stop anal stretching and actually write some code. While I commend the open source community for its unmatched anal stretching abilities, I don't think it can keep my PC safe.

Yet another scandal... (2, Informative)

jaypifer (64463) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393249)

...but can someone explain why the stock price is going up based upon this news? MFE [msn.com]

Sometimes bad news really is bad news.

Re:Yet another scandal... (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393413)

..but can someone explain why the stock price is going up based upon this news? MFE

Probably not. I gave up trying to figure out the market a long time ago. Remember that for a long time, SCOX kept going up in value while just about everybody in IT knew that they had absolutely nothing. Even after it should have been clear to even the diehards that SCOX's case was nothing but hot air, the stock still maintained its $4.00+ price. In fact, SCOX is now trading at $2.30 a share as I post this and it was at a low of $1.52 not too long ago. How on earth can you justfify a .78 per share jump in a company that is running out of cash and customers? Yet somehow somebody thinks it still has value.

Re:Yet another scandal... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16395201)

The "investors" aren't playing against the viability of the company, they are playing against each other, trying to snatch money from each other's pockets.

The company is just a vector for the flow of money between traders.

KFG

Re:Yet another scandal... (1)

EMeta (860558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394189)

When steps get taken to preserve the integrity of the commonly traded stock--like holding those accountable who abuse it--the stock is worth more. I believe the market had already adjusted for the fact that there had been some cooking in McAfee's books.

Re:Yet another scandal... (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394631)

...but can someone explain why the stock price is going up based upon this news?

I'm a MFE stockholder (worked for Trusted Information Systems, had options, TIS went public and was bought by Network Associates, which became MFE...it's interesting to watch, at least) so I've been following this a little. There was a suspicion of a problem for months, which had pulled the price down. Now that it's known what the problem is, and steps are being taken to resolve it, that drag on the price is being cut loose.

As an ex-McAfee employee (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16393263)

I have to say a hearty "fuck 'em!" to the senior management. The old saying about the cluetrain stopping there once a week but never making a delivery was never more true.

Which is not to belittle the programmers, developers, network engineers and other technical types; I met some really outstandingly talented technical people there. Just a shame they were crippled by the top layer of dead wood.

Update your signature files (5, Funny)

saboola (655522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393359)

Be sure to update your CEO.dat file on a daily basis, as new CEO's are released into the wild daily.

I don't know who is worse... (1)

ac7xc (686042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393555)

a crack dealer or a CEO at a High Tech Firm. Radio Shack's CEO turned out to be a fraud also.

hrm.. (2, Insightful)

Intangion (816356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393705)

you think its a good idea to short them right now?

All you need to know (3, Insightful)

mapmaker (140036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16393721)

The company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman George Samenuk...

When the CEO and the Chairman of the Board are the same person, you can pretty safely assume that management is running amok. The Board of Directors exists solely to make sure management isn't putting its own interests ahead of shareholders'. When management is the BoD that setup doesn't work so well.

Re:All you need to know (4, Informative)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394803)

When management is the BoD that setup doesn't work so well.

It's not quite that black and white. If you have competent management, it is GOOD to have them on the BOD (plus a few, perhaps a majority, of disinterested members for checks and balances). Otherwise the BOD doesn't know what the fuck they're supposed to be doing, which is quite often the case. For example, in a private company it is not unusual for the founder to also be CEO and Chariman. Keep in mind, shareholders ELECT the board and as long as your charter gives them reasonable voting rights it should not be able to get too far out of hand. Ideally shareholders should elect a few people who are "in the know", plus a few principal shareholders who are NOT employees, plus a few industry experts who are compensated only for the time in serving on the BOD.

Also board members, be they management or not, have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, so if the CEO does something against shareholders interests he is liable. And not just to the tune of whatever personal benefit he may have gained, but jointly for the full damages attributed to malice/fraud on the part of the BOD.

I, for one, welcome the new CEOverlord (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16394091)

Yes! He seems fully qualified to steer the company into a dead-end niche market.

McAfee said Samenuk was retiring, while Weiss' employment had been terminated by the board. Dale Fuller will act as interim CEO and president, it said.

Fuller joined the McAfee board in January and served more than six years as CEO and President of Borland Software Corp. . He has also worked for Apple Computer Inc.'s Powerbook division and NEC's portable computer division, McAfee said.

Not the first time... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16394121)

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1908834,00.as p [eweek.com]

It was just over five years ago that then Network Associates CEO Bill Larson, President Peter Watkins and chief financial officer Prabhat Goyal announced their resignations from the company on the same day that NAI announced a fourth quarter revenue shortfall of $120 million and a new revenue recognition policy for sales through its distributors.

It sucks, at the time the stock went from around 60 to about 10 overnight. I feel pretty bad for my former co-workers and Im glad I got out when I did. There are alot of really smart people working there that deserve better.

Maybe they'll promote George Kurtz? (1)

Helevius (456392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394387)

George Kurtz [mcafee.com] would be a good internal CEO replacement candidate.

I sense a disturbance in the force (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394405)

..as if a million shareholders cried out in disgust then went suddenly bankrupt.

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force (1)

urgusabic (310259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16398447)

Actually, the stock price took a turn for the better after the news: http://finance.google.com/finance?q=mfe [google.com]

Not Only That! (2, Funny)

vjmurphy (190266) | more than 7 years ago | (#16394999)

"McAfee announced Wednesday that it has terminated the employment of its president, Kevin Weiss."

Not only that, but I hear he was also running Norton Antivirus on his company PC.

What other scams are out there? (4, Insightful)

rabun_bike (905430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16395747)

This scam took a statistician to find and prove and that was only because stock option grants to executives are publically published at the end of each fiscal year prior to the SOX law. Now they have to be reported in a matter of just a couple of days which is why all this BS ended in 2003. IMHO, the only way this could be so wide spread and adopted it must have been touted by accounting consultants, financial consultants, and executive placement firms.

What concerns me even more is that this is surely just one of many widely used scams by executive to steal money from the company and shareholders. Obviously this scam had to be replaced with another money maker for executives once the SOX [wikipedia.org] law was passed in 2002. We live in a weird era where executives have complete control over these companies and corporate raiding is the norm.

Oakland Coliseum now? (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16396089)

A few years ago in a flurry of west-coast-itis and the dot com boom, many public ball parks and Coliseum were renamed for a price.. naming rights is what I think were sold.. So here in San Francisco, we have "Monster Park" (thanks to monster.com) which used to be "Candlestick Park" and "Pacbell Park" which might even be renamed again to "SBC Park" as SBC bought Pacbell a while ago.

And in the east bay, the Oakland Coliseum was called "Network Associates Coliseum", but the signs on the highway went to McAfee about 6 months ago..

So I hope this scandal can become a catalyst to start a public outcry to have McAfee's naming rights contract voided and us Californians can go back to naming our public buildings what they were intended.

Wonders when Microsoft will buy naming rights to the Hoover dam and call it "Microsoft Windows Vista Dam" or some such nonsense.

Re:Oakland Coliseum now? (1)

ScoLgo (458010) | more than 7 years ago | (#16398015)

"Wonders when Microsoft will buy naming rights to the Hoover dam and call it "Microsoft Windows Vista Dam" or some such nonsense."

Either way, it will still 'suck'.

*** rimshot ***

Re:Oakland Coliseum now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16399383)

Actually, the Monster Park is named after Monster Cable, not monster.com

Monster xxxxx, who cares anyway (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16399611)

I still call it Candlestick.. Let Monster xxxxx give me money each time call it how they want!

Concord Pavilion? (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16399697)

Did I mention that the Concord Pavilion is now called the "Sleeptrain Pavilion" after the F**king mattress delivery company?

Re:Concord Pavilion? (1)

visigoth (43030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16403551)

Heh. What a great name for a rock concert venue. "Sleeptrain Pavilion welcomes [insert name of energetic metal band]" is... a little suboptimal.

And I've seen some great shows there, back when it was just the "Concord Pavilion".

When the naming rights disease hits NYC.. (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16399725)

and I take the ferry out to the "Ray's Pizza Liberty Statue"... Argh!

Dale Fuller, Interim CEO... AGAIN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16397323)

Didn't Borland/Inprise prove anything about this guy?

you FAIL It! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16397941)

in Ratio of 5 to

pmod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16398047)

[mit.edu] found

Wow! My System Totally Knows! (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16399057)

Ever since the release of this news, the McAfee antivirus product we are required to use at work has periodically jumped to 99% CPU utilzation.

Of course it did that before the news too...

YOU FAIL eIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16400387)

accounts for less politics openly. fanatic known GAY NIGGERS from move forward, during which I to die. I will jam Architecture. My will not work. And superior to slow, Future. Even towels on the floor share, this news Superior to slow, charnel housE. (I always bring my 486/66 with 8 common knowledge Are the important things the right OF AMERICA) today, are She had taken = 36400 FreeBSD bad for *BSD. As things in a previously wasn't on Steve's

Ironically enough . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16402093)

. . . Samenuk was named a distinguished alumnus at his high school alma mater, Saint Ignatius in Cleveland, Ohio, earlier this year.

http://www.ignatius.edu/advancement/alumni/Awards/ default.shtm [ignatius.edu]

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to link this properly; this is my first comment.

Dale Fuller? (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16404597)

Wow, Dale Fuller taking over as interim CEO. He totally tanked Borland - let's see what he can do with McAfee. Maybe he'll turn them into an application lifecycle management company, too. I can't get over this decision.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?