Goldman Sachs Caves Against Gripes Site; Money Doesn't Buy Bogus Trademark Lawsuit Wins
from the that's-one-for-the-little-conspiracy-theory-guy dept
Back in April, we wrote about the odd decision by massive Goldman Sachs to threaten legal action against a gripes/conspiracy site called GoldmanSachs666.com. The site was obviously not an official site of GS or endorsed by the company, and any moron in a hurry would recognize immediately that it was an anti-Goldman Sachs site. Threatening it made absolutely no sense. The company, as large as it is, had almost no chance to win in court, and the threat would only get that much more attention to the site itself -- which it has.And, now that Goldman Sachs has bestowed so much media attention on the gripes site it's basically caved in and withdrawn its complaint (via CitMediaLaw). But, that still doesn't explain how anyone at Goldman Sachs thought it was a good idea in the first place to bully this guy?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gripes sites, trademark
Companies: goldman sachs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This week, they've approved an action providing gross bonuses for Q2 equal to some $700,000 per employee. Yes, 3 months of work is worth $700,000.
Henry Paulsen's comapany.
"Goldman Slacks" As Jim Cramer put it, which was his previous employer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You see the same thing with managers fighting for larger budgets; their self interest in being able to say "I managed a $5m budget" outweighs the company's long term goals of allocating resources efficiently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If the companies lose a lot of money, the management is corrupt and incompetent and doesn't deserve to be paid. If the company makes a lot of money... they still don't merit bonuses?
When, exactly, would be bonuses be merited? I'm not a financial guy, but making $3.4B in one quarter in this economy is kind of impressive to me.
The bonuses amount to 50% of the profit for the quarter. Sure, it seems steep, but you have to admit it was an impressive (or lucky) performance. Heck, Warren Buffet's investment alone gained $1B of value in the past quarter, for an annualized rate of return of 107%. The company's sitting on
Emotional dislike aside, why not pay big bonuses? What would you suggest they do with the money? Add it to the $160B of excess liquidity they're sitting on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hurried Morons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Bonuses can be okay, but they HAVE to start being in more reasonable values. The whole lesson we were supposed to have learned over the past year was that the days of excess are over. These bonuses are excessive.
"When, exactly, would be bonuses be merited? I'm not a financial guy, but making $3.4B in one quarter in this economy is kind of impressive to me."
Yes, some would even say SUSPICIOUSLY impressive. Some might even have called them "Madoff-esque", until about six months ago that is.
"Emotional dislike aside, why not pay big bonuses? What would you suggest they do with the money? Add it to the $160B of excess liquidity they're sitting on?"
First, a stipulation: NO LAW SHOULD BE CREATED TO DO WHAT I SAY NEXT, IT IS SIMPLY SOMETHING I THINK MORE PEOPLE SHOULD DO MORE OF. My answer to the question of what should they do? Invest that money in their country through corporate investments of small businesses, charities, and the like. In fact, there are an awful lot of servicemen waiting for their VA claims to be processed because the VA is so understaffed and underfunded. A billion there could probably do a lot of good.
Again, they certainly should not be FORCED to do this through taxation or law, but for all the Rah Rah Go America bullshit you here out of the wealthy elite, you'd think they'd want to do more to help than simply trying to win some real life monopoly game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How Come
If you think the USA is swirling in a Coriolis to the bottom of the sewer, you would be correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
How about when they actually did something that truly added long term value?
There is excessive pay and bonuses paid to these people, in most cases, for doing nothing more than shuffling paper and hoping things turn out well.
It also doesn't sit well with me that some of the "bonuses" is really nothing more than their standard pay, it's classified as a bonus only so they don't have to pay the full income tax rate on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems like the only people who learned a lesson are us poor, dumb b**tards who footed the bill to save the banking system.
I must have missed our share of the bonuses...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's like you fell out of the sky. The $10 billion from the government directly or the $12 billion to AIG that helped GS are not part of this "luck" somehow?! Or the fact that government allowed them to become a bank holding company in record short time that prevented all their clients from withdrawing (or at least trying to) all their assets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what to do w/ GOLDMAN'S STACKS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But if you're going to argue that, then we're all in the same boat. I didn't earn my consulting fees last quarter, because without the AIG bailout, my clients would likely have been in real trouble and would have spent less money (and no, my "consulting" is not financial at all, and I'll never see money like we're talking about here, so I'm not an interested party).
Seems like a lot of handwaving there. Tell me again why Warren Buffet, who made $1B in three months from investing in GS, is being shortchanged by these bonuses? Or, if you want to be really out there, why the government is being shortchanged?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, most of the "wealthy elite" are that wealthy and elite because they've focused their lives on maximizing returns. Any "rah rah America" stuff you hear is from the very few who venture into the political arena.
Second, why do bonuses HAVE to be more reasonable? Where do you want that profit to go? Is it better for society and the economy if GS leaves it around as excess and unused capital, or if they pay substantial bonuses to a lot of people, each of whom (presumably) is going to look to parlay it by investing?
Third, your Madoff reference makes you seem like a kook. Are you suggesting GS' profits are fictional and that they keep two sets of books? Or was that a random and bizarre outburst?
Anyways, I agree that the system could be improved. But unless we're willing to scrap the market or do weird stuff like having the government regulate all compensation, reforms are going to have to be shareholder and market driven. No amount of "it SHOULD be different" will do a thing.
So shoot -- make a proposal for how change could be effected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quaker Steak and Lube
Probably similar to how the East India Company thought it was invincible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a misunderstanding of how most of the wealthy elite in the world attained their wealth, not to mention a head in the sand attitude with regard to the marriage between big industry and government in this country.
"Second, why do bonuses HAVE to be more reasonable? Where do you want that profit to go? Is it better for society and the economy if GS leaves it around as excess and unused capital, or if they pay substantial bonuses to a lot of people, each of whom (presumably) is going to look to parlay it by investing?"
Here's my question as an answer: Which creates a greater overall economy, large bonuses to 5% of a company, or spreading that profit around more (but not totally) evenly amongst every last member of the corporate "team", from the Prez to the Janitors? I think that giving more people some wealth to spend creates more economy than lots of wealth for some to maybe spend.
"Third, your Madoff reference makes you seem like a kook. Are you suggesting GS' profits are fictional and that they keep two sets of books? Or was that a random and bizarre outburst?"
Sure there's some Frank Thomas' out there. But most of them, to one degree or another, whether they get caught or not, are Barry Bonds / Mark McGuire / Sammy Sosa / Ralph Palmiero / A-Rod. Calling people who call out the truth "kooks", lumping them in with UFO hunters and what have you is the oldest trick in the book. Corrupt business is easy, and if you want to name a forum where we can discuss it in detail, I'd be thrilled to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LETTER FROM GOLDMAN
This could be its letter of appreciation, ----
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/07/goldman-sachs-thank-you-mr-president.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Even if it was a result of the government bailout, because they did make a profit and that is what counts isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad for america
http://www.stocktagger.com/2007/09/jim-cramer-calls-goldman-sachs-gs-best.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]