Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
Realistically that still leaves problems around secrecy. Presuming they are actually selling ultratech products or services as their business, the great majority of them will need safety authority and/or regulatory approval.
|
It seems that many pharmaceutical companies work like this though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
Okay, but FYI, patent protection in the U.S. is 20 years.
|
No patents for Genesis then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
You don't need to pay receptionists, office cleaners, admin assistants, bookkeepers, interns, lab assistants, truck drivers, night watchmen, etc. the rates of highly qualified professionals. If you do, you will run into issues around heirarchical expectations.
|
The words are NAIs, robotics and swarms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
Some more questions then: When did they become participants (particularly, before or after the merger, all in one sort of offering or over time)? What were the reasons for seeking them as shareholders, and what are their reasons and expectations for joining? Can you be more specific about the share percentages they hold?
|
The founders were shareholders from the beginning and currently hold 25%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
Need clarification (though perhaps some will come from the questions above). I sounds like the lines of credit were secured around the time of the merger. You didn't say who provided them or how they were obtained (noting that the value of the company immediately after the merger seems to have been $120B, what revenue evidence/expectations supported the loan applications) . Also, hundreds of billions could be 200 or 900, can be you be more specific? Finally, how much remains outstanding on them, and what is/was the average of the carrying interest rate?
|
There were a couple of rounds of funding. Profits are great, for 120B the net income would have been about 15.12B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
A simple majority of votes could effect a compulsory buy-out. If you have a supervoting share structure, proving you are being fair to the minority being forced out will be more rigorous. But another snag for realism is the nature of your minority holders. Governments and banks would be sophisticated investors who would probably have sought agreements to protect them from the whims of the majority of supervotes. Or they may have rejected a supervoting structure entirely.
|
Seems like a lot of companies work like this, i.e. Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
If I was a person or entity that is a viable rival, I would look at how I could induce WQ to mismanage over time leading to eventual critical business failures, possibly through faulty information or subtle problems with the algorithms.
|
Sure. It should get fixed before that happens though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
Is this kind of split provided for or meaningful in the Boardroom and Curia rules?
|
Yes it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook
Oh, and BTW, I think getting into a physical war with the nations of the earth will tank your markets and business prospects. And why would you. Just go to a poor archipelago state and cut a deal for what you need.
|
Sounds good enough. In fact, any idea that allows companies to merge will serve. I prefer that they deal with the conquest of Antarctica later.