OnLive Acquires OnLive 154
techfun89 writes with an update on OnLive shutting down. From the article: "The restructured OnLive has issued an press release and FAQ to attempt to clear up any rumors and misinformation on the companies recent changes. OnLive is emphasizing that the streaming game service will go on uninterrupted and the 'Newly formed company' will continue to use the OnLive name. The press release also outlines the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC) process OnLive used to settle debts and that an affiliate of Lauder Partners, a technology investment firm, was the new OnLive's first investor. The firm talked about the necessity of laying off its staff, stating that 'neither OnLive, Inc. shares nor OnLive staff could transfer under this type of transaction,' and confirming that nearly half of the previous staff had been offered positions at the new company. The new firm mentions that this acquisition holds hope for the future 'of transforming the OnLive vision into reality.' This effectively means that OnLive was essentially bought out by OnLive, or rather, more specifically, one of their original investors in the company who backed the startup back in 2009."
we're fucked (Score:4, Insightful)
just like we said. Corporate bastards can do anything the fuck they want.
Re:Sounds Like a Shell Game (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like some loophole method of getting out of your debts
Exactly. From TFA:
Unfortunately, neither OnLive, Inc. shares nor OnLive staff could transfer under this type of transaction, but almost half of OnLive’s staff were given employment offers by the new company at their current salaries immediately upon the transfer, and the non-hired staff will be given offers to do consulting in return for options in the new company.
So basically, "you're fired. Now, you can come back to work for us with no pay, just stock options that will be worth absolutely nothing when we do this again."
Like all shareholders, neither Steve [Perlman] nor any of his companies received any stock in the new company or compensation in this transaction at all. Steve is receiving no compensation whatsoever and most execs are receiving reduced compensation to allow the company to hire as many employees as possible within the current budget.
Right. Any time a CEO works for "no compensation whatsoever," it means they have an agreement in place for a ton of shares or options down the road. So, in effect, he makes it look like he got wiped out like everyone else, when in fact his compensation has just been swept under the rug/shell for safe keeping.
Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff like this is why countries have laws against firing people, btw.
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you care to spell out exactly what the problem is, or do you just want to rage incoherently?
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists (Score:4, Insightful)
Uncontrolled free market causes power focus into the hands of few powerful at the expense of many powerless. In this case, the manoeuvre allowed a big investor to essentially throw all small investors out of the company with minimal additional investment. If he had to play it fair and prop the company financially in return for additional relative share in the company, smaller investors would have gotten to keep at least a portion of their investment.
It's a pretty good example of how uncontrolled free market capitalism works on basic level, and why big publicly traded companies tend to include rules that deny or resist such manipulation to gain trust (and money) from small and medium sized investors (i.e. limit free market capitalism with regulation).
Re:But I like raging... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's lots and lots of problems here, but the fundamental one is that the workers are at a marked disadvantage over the Capitalists. Those employees can't really do anything about any of this. OnLive wins, they lose.
The original investors have also lost in the process.
I was just reading Wikipedia's articles on Voluntary Slavery and Wage Slavery.
It is usually called a mortgage. If your parents were not wealthy enough to give you a home (or tuition fees), you'll need to take a job. You'll need the same if you can't live without that shiny gadget (i...whatever-apple-is-pushing-now) or want to drive an SUV or ...
I guess my point is this: "Free Market" Capitalists argue that freedom will win out in the end.
Well, I think they may be actually right. Except that nobody is able to tell the cost of this victory.
That's not what's happening here (Score:5, Insightful)
RANT MODE ON
And @$#! am I fed up with conservatards using the threat of job loses to keep us at each others throats. Better let the Job Creators do what they want or they'll take EVERYTHING away. It's there's after all. Mitt $#F#!@ Romney built it all with his own two hands. Him and John Galt. Jesus, what the hell is wrong with us? When did we become such a bunch of fsckin' cowards that we let these yahoo's push us around?
RANT MODE OFF