Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I'm not talking about buying them. I'm talking about selling.

For arguments sake, suppose you had 50,000 to sell.

What would you do? Sell them as (valuable) unrestricted stock? Or convert them to (less valuable) Regulation S stock?

Why would anyone convert any unrestricted stock to Regulation S stock?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

the company converted them, as I said in my first post on the subject, probably so they could issue them to employees taking up share options.

Next conspiracy theory ?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

We offer this disturbing thought. The federal securities laws, the very rules that were calculated to discourage deception and protect investors, provide a pair of mechanisms that fuel fraudulent stock schemes. Or, to put it slightly differently, securities laws that are designed to foster transparency and disclosure instead protect silence and deception.

One fundamental precept underlies our federal securities laws - investors must be given access to material information about public companies and the people who run and control them. Yet two federal regulations not only ignore that mandate but tolerate secrecy.

What are these tools that can be used to distribute stock clandestinely to the four corners of the globe, conceal identities, launder funds, and defraud investors? They are every con artist's dream and every law enforcement official's nightmare - and they share a common root, the letter "S." They are Regulation S, which allows U.S. public companies to sell stock overseas without registration, and Form S-8, which enables companies to register shares instantly.

When they were first enacted, these two regulations were relatively benign, but promoters and manipulators have discovered ways to utilize both Regulation S and Form S-8 to further illicit schemes.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

From what I read about Reg-S shares doesn't this mean they can now be sold in the Uk and elsewhere in the world? (without the protection afforded to the USA based shares).

Perhaps it's something you would need to do if you were going to allocate shares to uk employees or something. IANASB (that's stock broker, not son-of-a-bitch, that would be IANASOAB..and would also be a lie :p: )

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Form Phorm's website - no doubt a place where you all fear to tread !

"Phorm's outstanding shares trade under two ticker symbols: PHRM and PHRX. The PHRM shares are subject to certain trading restrictions. The PHRX shares are unrestricted.

As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 11,370,898 PHRM shares outstanding. Of the PHRM shares, 434,000 shares were issued on 22 June, 2007, these shares remain subject to the one-year distribution compliance restrictions on sales to US persons pursuant to Regulation S under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The remainder of our PHRM shares are not subject to distribution compliance restrictions under Regulation S. However, all our PHRM shares contain US Securities Act of 1933 legends, and absent registration, holders must have an available exemption (e.g. Rule 144) in connection with any sales to US persons.

As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 850,326 PHRX shares outstanding. The PHRX shares do not contain any restrictive legend. In general, these shares are freely tradable unless they are held by persons who are (or during the last three months were) affiliates of Phorm."

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Maybe you would take the loss to hand them out to nervous UK and Russian staff to keep them on the payroll? it's a reasonable corollary of what the Hamster is suggesting.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Can't comprehend this. The article headline is "Phorm trial to begin 'imminently' ".

But the text within says

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/208191/phorm-trial-to-begin-imminently.html

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

More Home Office nonsense

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

To paraphrase the response shown in that url..

"We are a useless bunch of ******s and we don't know why you continue to pays us huge sums of cash for what amounts to getting into bed with big business. But thanks anyway. Ta ta."

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Isn't it time they considered changing the name of that web site?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Re more Home Office nonsense.

Consider the facts...

In a statement, the Home Office emphasised that the note should not be taken as gospel by anyone. It said: "We can't comment on the legal position of targeted online advertising services. It is up for [sic] the courts to interpret the law.

"We did prepare an informal guidance note. It should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. It wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology."

It was not intended for publication, but was disseminated by one of the companies.

"The note expressed a generalised view on whether RIPA was relevant to targeted online advertising. However, it was not formal guidance nor was it a definitive statement of the law. "


Based on the FACT that the HO cannot say whether it is legal or not and DID NOT examine the technology nor did they instruct any technical experts to examine it, the Home Office 'informal guidance note' should be withdrawn with immediate effect. They should never have given the view in the first place.

It's a good job that it was leaked into the public domain to show how incompetent the Home Office is on such matters.

They will not retract, no doubt because of the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong.
Because of this absurdity, both phorm and BT believe they can commit corporate eavesdropping without fear of redress.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

so this would enable phorm to give share options to employees of non US citizenship (eg in UK or Russia), fair enough, in return though the value of the company is reduced as the overall value of shares (both protected and Reg S combined) is reduced

and restrictions do not allow them to be return to protected status for 12 calander months (although loopholes do appear to be around to negate this restriction, like offshore companies etc)

Peter

(as the moderator says
Nothing on this board should be accepted as any recommendation as to whether or not any person should or should not buy, sell, or otherwise invest in any company or organisation. Any reader of this forum should consult a competent advisor before any decision is reached

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

It is the age old marketing / research classic of ask the right (preloaded) question to get the answer you want

I.E. would you want the adverts you see appear to be more relevant (most will answer yes)

as opposed to

would you mind all of your browsing interecepted, analysed and your privacy invaded to provide more relevant adverts (most will answer NO)

without knowing the exact question and information provided (very little if leaks are to be believed) we can't say how much spin both the HO and phorm have put on the Q & A

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

A perfect example, as explained by the ultimate Master of these matters, the superb Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister.
This is how BT will get their 10,000 trialists. :)

OB

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

You are most certainly correct with your comments but remember that the first two trials of Phorms (121Media) interception of BT customers HTTP data was certainly illegal according to unbiased analysis. It is most likely that also will be any future trial.

The bottom line is no matter what they do to opt people in or out, they will probably always be breaking copyright and possibly other laws by profiling most the other websites in the world without the website owners consent. Robots.txt on a website allowing Googlebot does not consent to Phorm. This issue will not go away. (I suspect neither will many of the other issues).

If Phorm/Webwise is supposed to be so good, why don't Phorm instigate their own User-agent string ID and watch how many, or how few, websites clamber to ensure Phorm is allowed to profile their data.

I suspect they don't because it is of my opinion that they know Phorm will not be wanted by most site owners who are informed as to what they do. It is my opinion that they produce lots of clouds and fog to smother this issue and hope it will go away (which it wont).

The issue about Phorm having the ability to track individual users by email addresses and other innocent data that they will profile from many types of HTTP data will not go away either. Phorm must be stopped.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

If only the UK politicians had as much clout as the US:

Charter Freezes Web Eavesdropping Plan