decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Not all things in the annual report had to happen the first day of the fiscal year. | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not all things in the annual report had to happen the first day of the fiscal year.
Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT
Yes, the annual report is for everything that happened during that fiscal year,
but not all things happened during all time periods within that fiscal year.
Annual reports also report about things that happened, or started happening,
part way through the fiscal year. If the first 3 quarterly statements didn't
have that information, then it must have changed during the fourth quarter of
the fiscal year. The first quarterly statement for the next fiscal year has it.

How come Schwartz added the Safe harbor statement to his blog a few months after
the blog in question? If that particular blog post did not have the safe harbor
statement, then it cannot be taken as material company information, or if it was
material company information and did not have the safe harbor message attached,
then they were due for some sort of penalty from the SEC. I may not know a lot
about most aspects of the law, and I thank Groklaw for educating me, but I do
know a bit about SEC regulations. I think that was why Google didn't press the
point when McNealy said that the blog in question wasn't the official corporate
viewpoint, because legally it wasn't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

OK, I checked.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT
i used to lurk on sun sites at the time.
1. all posts in Schwartz Blog where vetted by company attorney from the very
beginning.
also,2. at the beginning they said all content in the blogs will always be
accessible but oracle just removed everything

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )