Feeds

back to article Schmidt's $1.45bn Google stock sale compelled by adultery?

Eric Schmidt's recent sale of over $1.45bn (£914m) in Google stock raised eyebrows on Wall Street, but a report now suggests he needs the liquidity to pay off his wife for a divorce. "There are many reasons why he's selling shares, mostly business reasons, but he's also working towards a transition and an amicable separation and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Do no evi... Oh wait this is an article by the New York Post?

I think I'll wait for something more credible.

5
0
Thumb Up

Cool...

...El Reg linked a Dan Savage site.

6
7

Re: Cool...

oh no, I got a down vote. I didn't realise that Rick Santorum read The Register.

Also, does anyone else remember when 'Monogamish' was a song by the Muppets?

7
6
Anonymous Coward

Why does this article read like women in a marriage have no real importance and when it fails are getting something completely undeserved when assets are divided.?

7
11
Anonymous Coward

With that face they'in in it just for money, really.

11
1
Devil

Marriage, itself, bears no importance, not women.

It's a mistake, one rather realize till "he" is younger.

0
4

undeserved?

In fact, she deserves even more just to compensate for years spent with such an ugly person as mr.Schmidt...

2
2
Bronze badge

"Why does this article read like women in a marriage have no real importance?"

That's your bias, not the Reg's, if the facts are as given. And also the bias, or rather the design, of the law. Eric Schmidt spent the last ten years building Google. Wendy Schmidt "has largely spent her time on charity work". But in California law, specifically, she kind of gets half of Google if she and Eric divorce. I suppose it's assumed that she enjoys the benefit of half of her husband's stake in Google while they're married, and that she should not be deprived of that in the course of a rumoured divorce. Do I think that's wrong? I haven't thought about it really. On the other hand, wouldn't these people have a pre-nup? But of course that might say just what the law says.

7
1
Bronze badge

Why does this article read like women in a marriage have no real importance and when it fails are getting something completely undeserved when assets are divided.?

Doesn't read like that to me.

3
1
Gold badge

Re: "Why does this article read like women in a marriage have no real importance?"

Her input into the marriage financially was negligible. When splitting assets surely ownership should be divided fairly based upon who paid for them?

Or would you give your wife half of everything you own even though she paid for none of it?

Of course the situation is a lot different if there are kids involved, since by splitting up the kids are being denied their usual family lifestyle and they shouldn't have to suffer too much financially.

Adults should have to make their own way in life, not rely on big payouts from ending a marriage, which often become an incentive for doing so.

As for pre-nups, some people think they take away the romance and are quite a cynical thing to get someone to sign before marrying them.

4
5
Law
Happy

Re: Re: "Why does this article read like women in a marriage have no real importance?"

"by splitting up the kids are being denied their usual family lifestyle and they shouldn't have to suffer too much financially"

Trying to maintain a decent lifestyle for the kids on only 3.5 billion per parent... I know I'd struggle. :'(

Personally, I think if a wife (or husband) was off work to raise the kids while the husband (or wife) was busy building the company then they should be entitled to half of it as they were contributing to the success as a family. Then again, I'm not a billionaire, so easy for me to say.

2
0

Re: Re: "Why does this article read like women in a marriage have no real importance?"

I think the laws are way more cynical than the pre-nups.

2
1

Because male privilege is rampant, especially among the IT crowd.

3
6
Facepalm

Someone *married* Bernie?

Power must be the best aphrodisiac.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Someone *married* Bernie?

I was thinking a similar thing about The Dirty Digger..!

1
0
Gold badge
Happy

Re: Someone *married* Bernie?

Well the daughters don't get their looks from dear old dad.

2
0
WTF?

Google opt out

Nothing to hide?

"a report now suggests"

"They are both very private"

"but it has been speculated"

"is worth a guestimated $7bn"

OK Schmidt, so it's OK for you to keep things private and under wraps, but not for the rest of us?

I'm very private too. Guestimate how many fingers I'm waving in your direction

13
2
Gold badge
Unhappy

Ian Fleming introduced me to a charming term.

C**k tax.

It's the price you pay for exercising the old feller.

Strangely no matter *how* smart people are they never seem quite smart enough to learn this.

4
1
Bronze badge

Re: Ian Fleming introduced me to a charming term.

It's not t todger tax, dear boy, it's a legal and binding contract. marriage, that is. Which is why it is done in a Government registry. A contract between two companies is invoked when one has failed to meet the terms it, itself, agreed upon. Marriage has, as a term upon which legal rights can be exercised, monogamy. If you don't want to accept the consequences of entering a legal agreement, doing enter into it. It's not todgers that are being 'taxed', but those who forget that marriage, as opposed to an emotional and/or sexual relationship, is a Government-defined and -supported institution.

3
0
g e
Silver badge

How amicable is that, then

When you have to cash in 1.5Bn?

They must be *great* friends to want to do that voluntarily.

More like she found a hot Latino waiter and thought 'feck I can get a massive settlement and get young hot cock for several years, too, if I play my cards right'

Cynical? Me?

1
2
Thumb Down

As I understand community property law ...

... and I'm not a lawyer ... one need not prove to have helped build a spouse's empire. What the partners each bring to the marriage stays in their respective possessions upon divorce, but anything accumulated, bought, earned, and/or otherwise procured during the marriage is considered "community" and up for division by a judge if the couple can not divvie up the loot themselves. There are at least a half-dozen states that still have these laws on the books for reasons I can only assume are the typical "but *I* stand to gain by them!" ones since there is no longer a societal assumption that "the little woman" is behind the scenes keeping the homefront organized so Mr. Breadwinner can be a success. There are probably state-specific tweaks and conditions but I'm pretty sure that's the general gist ... a gold-digger's paradise, really.

4
0
Gold badge

This is the problem with divorce law. If I was with someone rich, wasn't happy and knew I could get a few billion by divorcing them it wouldn't be a very hard decision to make.

0
1
Happy

Why do people always look on the black side ?

...or maybe they had a good relationship for however long it lasted, but it's reached a stage where they both wanted to go different ways and start new chapters of their life.

Still being good friends and having supported each other in their endeavours along the way, they agreed on an equal split which would harm neither and allow both to retire right now if they so wished.

If so - good on them for being sensible grown-ups and quietly getting on with their lives.

0
1
Go

Re: Why do people always look on the black side ?

Got your sunshine pump all primed and ready huh Rube?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The issue of property

Yes, she done charity work for X years, but one thing you'll find in business, single unmarried high flyers are few and far between, because no one trusts them too far.

Even Stringfellow has been married, because it helps in business to have a stable partner, being it at functions or presentations, she'd have contributed a lot to his social ability and also the ability of helping him be accepted in business.

Works same for women high flyers, no one wants do business with a person who can't even hold a relationship, let alone a company together

Anon as Mrs Anon may read this!!

0
1
Coffee/keyboard

"They are both very private"

chokes on lunchtime sandwich.

why have standards when you can have double standards?

8
0
Bronze badge
Stop

Am I the only one...

...who has noticed the use of the fabricated word 'guestimated' in a Reg article? GUESTIMATED for fuck's sake!

Ian Thompson, you should be banned from writing articles for the next week. At least.

0
0
Bronze badge

Yeah, use a spelling check sometime

It's GUESStimate, for heaven's sake!

0
0

Re: Am I the only one...

Guesstimate is in the OED I believe.

Although it should have a double ss :)

0
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: Am I the only one...

It's actually a word:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/guesstimate

C.

4
1
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Am I the only one...

GUESTIMATED - past participle, past tense of guest-imate

Verb - The murder of a spouse, esp. ripped limb from limb, by ones surviving wedding guests during or immediately after a divorce. ex. "The coroner declared the victim had been guestimated"

Mines the one with the slice of wedding cake in the pocket.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Re: Am I the only one...

> It's actually a word:

> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/guesstimate

Of course "guesstimate" is a word. Someone used it as one; in English, that's the barrier for entry. There's no generally-recognized authority over inclusion in the English lexicon. Appearance in the OED or another English dictionary is evidence of usage, but is not necessary to make a word of a sequence of letters.

And to the OP: all words are "made up". "Guesstimate" is an unnecessary and ugly portmanteau and a vile coinage in general, and the sort of thing a tasteful writer would avoid (except in special contexts such as quoting), but it's no more "made up" or less a word than any other. If you must proscribe, at least do it on the proper grounds.

0
0
Go

What was that line?

If you're doing something you want kept private maybe you shouldn't be doing it. Or words to that effect. He's just another Google PoS living the life he so richly deserves.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: What was that line?

PoS - is that an attempt to avoid Godwin's law? It's a bit strong.

Unless Google are doing something illegal if they were not someone would be doing similar. It's still not compulsory to use Google stuff.

Perhaps on the marriage stuff, it's all being done amicably. Though I do agree it will be difficult for him to rub along on only half a shitload.

0
0
Trollface

Now I ain't saying she's a gold digga

But she ain't messin' with no broke n*ggas.

0
1

Couldn't have happened to a nicer...

...blank

1
0
Facepalm

It went up did it ?

WOW $1.45B that's certainly put the price of Googling in perspective

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.