Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Media Movies

Father of DVD Gets Bitter Reward 435

Ant writes "MSNBC has a Newsweek article on Warren Lieberfarb, the father of DVD, transformed the movie business. And yet his reward was he was fired."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Father of DVD Gets Bitter Reward

Comments Filter:
  • Galileo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trent Polack ( 622919 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:30PM (#9546816) Homepage
    Hey, the church wanted to oust Galileo for his views on the soliocentric universe. Being smart sucks.
    • Re:Galileo (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gatorflux ( 759239 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:38PM (#9546855)

      This guy wasn't fired because he was smart. He was fired because the company knew that they had shortchanged him and they didn't want him hanging around to hassle them about it. He was exploited and, when he demanded fair compensation, he was shown the door.
      • Re:Galileo (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Grant29 ( 701796 ) *
        Corporate America. Times are good, times are bad. It just sucks when you get the short end of the stick.

        --
        11 Gmail invitations availiable [retailretreat.com]
      • Re:Galileo (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:53PM (#9547295)
        $135 Million

        An interesting concept for unfair compensation
        • Read it again. (Score:5, Informative)

          by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Sunday June 27, 2004 @10:43PM (#9547565) Journal
          But his "DVD bonus"--Time Warner stock options once worth as much as $135 million--was wiped out by the disastrous AOL Time Warner merger.

          They gave him stock, which they then rendered worthless with poor business decisions.
          • Re:Read it again. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:41PM (#9547923)
            He accepted stock, believing it to be worth more than it ended up being. A lot of people lost money in the merger. It wasn't anything personally directed to him.

            I don't really understand why someone would think they deserve more from their employer than their salary, unless its spelled out that they will get bonuses or whatever for great ideas.

            It is kind of a "chilling effect" not to pay bonuses to your idea folks, but that's the risk companies take... Those folks could just go on and form another company with their new idea, instead.
            • Re:Read it again. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by peg0cjs ( 572593 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:44AM (#9548498) Homepage

              Actually, he accepted stock options, which became nearly worthless when the stock plummetted. The downside to options is they expire, and most bonus packages that are issued as options have an exercise clause that forces the former employee to exercise them or lose them (I don't know if his did or not).

              What I don't understand is, he took a gamble that the options were going to be worth a whole lot more later. If the AOL-TW merger was a smashing success and his options were worth $1.6 billion, would he return the excess to the company? He took a risk in his bonus and lost. He could have just as easily (according to the article), accepted $25 million in cash.

            • Re:Read it again. (Score:5, Interesting)

              by stor ( 146442 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @05:24AM (#9549224)
              He accepted stock, believing it to be worth more than it ended up being. A lot of people lost money in the merger. It wasn't anything personally directed to him.

              Agreed.

              During the tech boom, like thousands of others I was offered a decent salary and large number of stock options to leave my current job and move into a new company.

              I accepted the offer. In the end, after stock splits, acquisitions/mergers, delays, blahblah the stock options weren't worth much. I was a bit surprised but then again I was naive. I'd do the same again: taking a certain degree of risks tends to increase opportunity from my experience. It wasn't a Bad Thing at all either: I gained so much from that job, including a great deal of respect from work colleagues, management and other people in IT.

              Getting paid in options is a gamble and I doubt this guy has any more of a legal leg to stand on than anyone else. Some dude told him "I'm gonna make you rich". Heh, same here. Bad luck. That's life.

              Cheers
              Stor
      • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:29PM (#9547852) Homepage Journal

        While he worked his butt off and managed to get people to come together on the standard, he was compensated rather nicely. To the tune of several million dollars -- over $100M at one point.

        I do not understand why anyone thinks they are "owed" when the lose their shirt gambling on the stock market. The only way he's got a claim is if he was prevented from selling the stock when he wanted to. Otherwise he's just another formerly rich dot-bomb victim, the same as a few million other people.

        The only difference is he had direct control over $100M+ of stock, not a few thousand dollars in a "retirement plan" like most dot-bomb victims.

        It seems he was raising hell throughout the company over his losses, blaming the company for the damage the stock value took after the merger. Again, if he had the option of selling his shares before the merger, he has no cause for complaint.

        Regardless of whether he has a legitimite claim (because he wasn't allowed to sell his stocks), you just don't get issues resolved by ranting and raving throughout the company and making an overly public stink about it. You pick the key individuals who can provide resolution and badger them, not badmouth everyone who doesn't help you immediately.

        If you make it as messy as he appears to have been doing, you get fired. Period. Any company, any nation, and industry. Nobody wants to keep an employee who spends their time bitterly complaining about how they're being abused, threatening to sue, or otherwise making it abundantly clear they don't want to work there.

        I sympathize and think he deserved more at the end of the day, but did not handle the issue correctly. At worst, he should have initiated a quiet lawsuit for his damages instead of ranting.

        • by johnlcallaway ( 165670 ) * on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:50AM (#9548276)
          I can't speak to this individual, but often times there are rules about when and how stock can be sold. For instance, if a company goes public, it is often 3-6 months before employees can cash in their stock, and as much as a year before executives. I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar restrictions in effect in this case.

          I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't restrictinos either either, but things like this are often 'negotiated' as part of termination settlements. 'You don't sue us, we give you $100M in stock, but you can't sell it for a year.'.
        • Milton Waddams: [talking on the phone] And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as mu
    • Re:Galileo (Score:5, Informative)

      by Spazholio ( 314843 ) <[slashdot] [at] [lexal.net]> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:40PM (#9546878) Homepage
      "Soliocentric"? I don't know what YOU'RE personally orbiting around, but I think the word you're looking for is "heliocentric".
    • Re:Galileo (Score:5, Funny)

      by Trent Polack ( 622919 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:42PM (#9546893) Homepage
      Man, I'm having such a dumb day. Heliocentric. You'd think I'd know that. I work in my uni's heliospheric space research division.

      Need more caffeine or something (at 8:45pm).
    • ah.. no (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      The church was mad at Galileo becasue he didn't follow procedure with his findings. Plus he was a 'in your face pope' kind of guy.

      The church did create the first public observatory.
    • Re:Galileo (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SEE ( 7681 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:30PM (#9547169) Homepage
      Right, putting Papal quotes into the mouth of "Simplicus" and publishing the work in vernacular Italian (meaning "Simplicus" would be pronounced as a word meaning "stupid") didn't have anything to do with it.

      There's a differnce being persecuted for nobly insisting on scientific truth, and being persecuted because you flamed the local absolute ruler in an era where freedom of speech was a concept yet to be invented.
  • by chunkwhite86 ( 593696 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:32PM (#9546822)
    they moved his job to India.
  • by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:35PM (#9546842) Journal
    Lieberfarb added billions of dollars to the company's value, says David Boise, his star lawyer, adding, "The question of how a company treats someone who has created that kind of value is interesting." Time Warner declined to comment.
    • For those who didn't get it, David Boise is SCO's star lawyer.
    • by utlemming ( 654269 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @10:29PM (#9547482) Homepage
      David Boise -- you know I think that I would have a little more sympathy for the guy, but as soon as I read who the laywer is, he lost my support. Although he is pretty high profile. A little research has revealed that he has had his fingers involved in the following:

      Microsoft Anti-trust (for Government)

      Bush v. Gore (for Gore)

      SCO v. everyone (for SCO)

      Napster (for Napster)

      These are some pretty high profile cases, but you'll notice taht he lost two of the major ones, and looks like he is going to lose another w/ SCO. Maybe with all the controversial cases the guy is taking (like Bush v. Gore, and the SCO cases) maybe we'll see the guy go away, or at least charged with malpractice.

      This is potentially off topic, however, since we are seeing a lot of David Boise in other areas, it might explain why we aren't seeing him too much in the SCO suit. Just with his choice of mercenary, it makes you wonder about the legitimacy of this guys case.

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:36PM (#9546849)
    Do you suppose he's that "cubicledrone" [slashdot.org] guy who was tearing up the career-related articles here yesterday with endless tales of being fired from job after job for his blatant superiority?
  • No News (Score:4, Insightful)

    by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:37PM (#9546853) Homepage
    >He didn't invent the technology.
    >More important, he saw its potential to transform the industry.

    Who invented the DVD technology? That's the news for nerds.
  • $10M (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PHlLlPY ( 670556 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:37PM (#9546854)
    he got $10 million in severance pay.... if only I had such a rotten deal
    • Re:$10M (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NewNole2001 ( 717720 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:29PM (#9547158)
      Let's put this in our terms. Say you're making $50,000 a year and you're due a bonus of $125,000 (I dunno why, but this is what happens) but then your immediate superior says, 'Hey, you can get $1 Million in stock options instead of the bonus.' And seeing as how this is a good bit more than what your bonus would be, you say "Fuck yeah!" and do it, but then the company does something retarded, and your stock option become completely worthless. Then, on top of that, they fire you, and give you one year's pay severance. So, instead of getting $1.05 Million, or even $175,000 in bonus and severance, you're stuck with the $50,000 in severance. I think I would be pissed in this situation. Now for this guy, it's the same situation, just that there is a lot more money involved. Instead of getting $25 Million bonus, or getting the $125 million in options, he gets $10 Million in severance. There's a big difference between $125 Million and $10 Million. So, in his shoes, I would be bitching, too.
  • good quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Travis Fisher ( 141842 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:38PM (#9546856)
    Quote from the article:
    • In the future, will there be a place for a "hard" medium that you can touch and store on your shelves? Lieberfarb believes that answer is no. "The future will see video on demand delivered over the Internet, and movies will be just one of the offerings,'' he says.
    So the "father of the DVD" is predicting its demise. ("Father" is maybe less appropriate than "midwife" -- he didn't invent anything, he just convinced the industry bigwigs to adopt it...)
    • by MarcoAtWork ( 28889 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:40PM (#9546872)
      people will always want something 'tangible' for their $$$, something to put in their DVD tower, to lend to friends, to resell if they want to, and to watch whenever and wherever. Given DRM and everything I really doubt video on demand will eclipse DVDs any time soon.
      • people will always want something 'tangible' for their $$$, something to put in their DVD tower, to lend to friends, to resell if they want to, and to watch whenever and wherever. Given DRM and everything I really doubt video on demand will eclipse DVDs any time soon.

        Don't forget the technical limitations. You'd need about half a T3 to get reliable DVD-quality video and audio streaming. That's probably going to take at least ten years to drop to a reasonable price.

        • Cable my friend, cable! They already have Comcast on demand here in Oregon. Pick the movie, start it when you want. I know of several companies that are working on true VOD - stop, pause, FF, etc. Most homes already have a damn big pipe in with Cable Coax, it's the ghetto (and if you've ever seen a cable head end, you'll agree) cable co equipment that's the limitation.
      • by martinX ( 672498 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:56PM (#9546965)
        It can easily happen. People go to the movies, pay money and leave with nothing more tangible than popcorn-greasy hands. People get cable TV and just watch it. No recording, just watch it.

        Even now that DVDs are relatively cheap to buy, there's not a whole lot I want to watch more than once. I'd rather pay a dollar every now and then to watch an episode of 'Futurama' on demand than have to buy the whole series.

        Do people really watch the entire '24' series on DVD?
        • by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:49PM (#9547269)
          There's a difference. Paying to see a movie is just that: paying to see something. In other words, when you go to a movie theater, you're paying for a service

          By contrast, when you pay to buy a movie [i.e. on DVD], you're paying to own a copy of something. In other words, when you buy a DVD [or parallel product, i.e. CD] you're paying for a good.

          So there it is: the key economic distinction between goods and services is that in the former case, you're expected to leave with a new product, while in the latter case you expect only to be treated in a certain manner.
      • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:05PM (#9547003)
        people will always want something 'tangible' for their $$$
        Are you saying that DVD sales outpace the cable TV industry? I know my cable bill is bigger than my DVD expenditures.
      • people will always want something 'tangible' for their $$$, something to put in their DVD tower, to lend to friends, to resell if they want to, and to watch whenever and wherever. Given DRM and everything I really doubt video on demand will eclipse DVDs any time soon.

        I disagree. Look at music. People are forking over almost the same for albums on iTunes as they do in Wal*Mart. For that, they get a lower quality product, but gain value in convenience.

        Anyone I know who has borrowed/bought/been lent a pirat
        • by Don Negro ( 1069 )
          iTunes is different that Video-on-Demand (assuming, as I am, that with VOD you aren't allowed to record the video for playback later)

          With iTunes Music Store, you purchase the right to listen to those bits as many times as you want without paying again, and to commit them to a more permanent media than your hard drive. That's a very different thing.
    • Re:good quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geek ( 5680 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:44PM (#9546902)
      I hear he's joining the Apple board of directors, right next to the father of the internet Al Gore. Steve jobs is afterall the father of computers. Wasn't it just fathers day too?

      Jokes aside, there are lots of reasons to fire someone. Maybe he's just a prima donna and management was sick of him walking up to chicks in the office saying "I'm the father of the DVD don't ya know". Maybe he just smells bad or jerks off in his cubicle to often. It's not like management said "This guy made us a billion dollars, fire him quick!".
    • Re:good quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:47PM (#9547972)
      Wise people know that owning a copy protects against censorship. Ten years from now, the owner of some movie might decide he doesn't want anyone to see it because his wife was naked in the film or he no longer likes its politics. If there's nothing but video-on-demand, POOF! and the film is gone, possibly forever. Widespread ownership is good.
  • by prof_peabody ( 741865 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:38PM (#9546859)
    If I discover a billion barrel oil field the super-major I work for gives me a 20% bonus. If I go for a powergrab they'll fire my ass. In most cases people like this do a lot of work, but there are a lot of other people and factors involved in popularizig dvds. I still like my job though...
    • If I discover a billion barrel oil field the super-major I work for gives me a 20% bonus.

      Let's be clear here -- 20% of your salary, not 20% of the revenue generated from your oil field.

      That kind of inequity is exactly why I quit working for a big high-priced computer company and went independent. Why should any of us settle for an infitesimal piece of the pie when with a little entreprenurial spirit we can get 50% or more? Worked well for me, after a couple of years of doing exactly the same kind of w
      • by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @02:06AM (#9548597) Journal
        Let's be clear here -- 20% of your salary, not 20% of the revenue generated from your oil field.

        That kind of inequity is exactly why I quit working for a big high-priced computer company and went independent. Why should any of us settle for an infitesimal piece of the pie when with a little entreprenurial spirit we can get 50% or more?

        This kind of comment is why IT workers probably should avoid making remarks on other industries...

        You can't go out and discover a new major oil field by yourself. Very few individuals do their own seismic surveys as a hobby. Even fewer can launch satellites themselves. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I can't front the costs to drill exploratory wells miles deep while floating in hundreds of feet of water.

        You want to get 20% of the profit from a new oil field? Put twenty or thirty or a hundred million dollars on the line. Then we'll talk.

  • Gee (Score:5, Informative)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:45PM (#9546905) Journal
    David Boies is really hanging out with some personable folks: Al Gore, Darl McBride and now this guy.

    I'd be curious to hear what kind of case he's going to make. I don't believe there's any principle that if you make an important enough contribution the company has to ignore your generally being a prick, and pleading for Steve Case and Richard Parsons to give you your stock value back seems like begging to your poker buddies after they clean you out.

    • Re:Gee (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:28PM (#9547148) Homepage
      Amen. If this guy got a $10 million severance, it's a sure bet that he was making a shit-ton of money from his salary (you know, what people pay their employees for their services?). And, poor him, his $135 million worth of stock options lost most of their value. Gosh, where do I donate to the fund to keep him and his family off the street? This is like pitying some poor executive who has to sell four out of his five houses because "times are tough."

      Tell me a story about a guy making 50 grand a year who gets fired after demonstrably improving his company and I'll feel something. In this case, all I can think to say is this: "Congratulations on realizing the American dream and then whining about it."

      PS- I would note that I was pretty early into the DVD scene and was a big fan of Time Warner for jumping headlong into the format giving me quite a bit of content, and many times more than other studios at the same time. So I'll offer my thanks to Mr. Lieberfarb for being instrumental in that process, and will also offer the hope that the door doesn't hit him in the ass on the way out and break the shell of his huge nest egg.

  • by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:46PM (#9546910) Homepage
    Now I've read the article, this man is far from "father of DVD". He would be better represented as "DVD pimp". Usual folie de randeur of /. editors, move on.
  • Welcome... (Score:3, Funny)

    by nonregistered ( 639880 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:46PM (#9546911) Homepage
    ...to Hollywood, Warren!
  • "He is a consultant to Microsoft, Toshiba and others on the next-generation DVD, which promises to pack even clearer images and more features onto the discs. It could mean another windfall."

    I feel like Tommy Lee Jones in MIB I, when he says, he'll have to buy the White Album again.

    Once the Industry has bled DvD for all it's worth, then we might seea bulk move to the newest, standards. Whichever they turn out to be.
  • Heh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by josh3736 ( 745265 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:48PM (#9546923) Homepage
    Lieberfarb looked for new ways to reach film audiences, but often ran into a fear that any new distribution outlets would merely siphon away fans from theaters and television. Entertainment companies fear "disruptive technologies," not realizing that "we all win," he laments.

    Doesn't that say it all? Yo, music industry!

    But hey, if we're making assloads of money the way we do things now, why risk something new?

  • A Hiidden Moral (Score:5, Insightful)

    by earthstar ( 748263 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:49PM (#9546929) Journal
    I think that story has a moral hiddden in it-No matter how much you have achieved,you should always have humility
    I believe that the first test of a truly great man is his humility. I do not mean by humility, doubt of his own powers. But really great men have a curious feeling that the greatness is not in them, but through them. And they see something divine in every other man and are endlessly, foolishly, incredibly merciful.
    John Ruskin
  • by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:51PM (#9546937) Homepage
    Everone knows that DVD stands for "Digital Versatile Disk" [google.com], not Digital Video Disk.

    One can only guess what else in this Newsweek article is wrong!

  • The man higher up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hung_himself ( 774451 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:57PM (#9546971)
    So the manager who took credit for inventing DVD's was stupid enough to get screwed by his fellow sharks...

    What about the poor shmoes who actually got the vershugginer thing to work who had to deal with this guy and probably got outsourced or lost their jobs due to the Time/Warner/AOL stock scam - I mean bubble...?
  • Tears and violins (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @08:59PM (#9546982)
    In mid-December, Lieberfarb was fired with $10 million severance. A friend at Time Warner describes him as "a tragic figure," adding, "It's very sad."
    If only my life were so tragic...
  • how sad. (Score:4, Funny)

    by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:04PM (#9547000)
    In mid-December, Lieberfarb was fired with $10 million severance. A friend at Time Warner describes him as "a tragic figure," adding, "It's very sad."

    Oh yeah. How ever will he get along with only $10 million.

    (/sarcasm)
  • by bani ( 467531 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:08PM (#9547027)
    Lieberfarb added billions of dollars to the company's value, says David Boise, his star lawyer, adding, "The question of how a company treats someone who has created that kind of value is interesting."

    Not really. They didnt treat him any differently than they treat anyone else: with utter contempt.
  • I love this: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:11PM (#9547046) Homepage Journal
    "his gut was telling him that if movie discs were the size of CDs, were priced right and offered a better picture and sound than video, people would collect movies like books. The key was to make the discs cheaply, based on a universal standard."

    my god, what a genius. If can give them something better, with the right price, people will buy it.
    People where allready collecting videos like books.

    Of course, his real accomplishment was to get everyone to agree on it.
  • by femto ( 459605 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:16PM (#9547085) Homepage
    From the artcle:

    In the future, will there be a place for a "hard" medium that you can touch and store on your shelves? Lieberfarb believes that answer is no. "The future will see video on demand delivered over the Internet, and movies will be just one of the offerings," he says.

    Can anyone else see the possibility of large hard disks (or their equivalent newer tech) becoming more difficult to buy retail? The googles and 'distributors' of the world will have bulk deals directly with the manufacturers, the majority will watch 'on demand' and the nerd/geek minority will have to pay more as hard disks are no longer a 'consumer item'. Copyright interests would no doubt see this as improvement, as 'average Joes' would lose the ability to store stuff themselves, having to 'pay per view'.

    Thoughts anyone? Will there be a mainstream application that will require privately owned data storage, keeping data storage as a consumer item?

  • Not because he's wealthy, but because he seems like just one of the many high energy, ego-driven assholes who inhabit the business world. He seems to have treated his peers just as poorly as they've treated him.
  • by Kobalt ( 585210 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:26PM (#9547138)
    Keep in mind that he took payment in the form of options rather than getting cash. Considering that a lot of people in the AOL/TW merger watched their options lose all value, he was pretty fortunate to get a $10 million severance package. He gambled and lost.
  • Geeks unite (Score:3, Funny)

    by NIK282000 ( 737852 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:27PM (#9547140) Homepage Journal
    And bring justice for this man. This man who has brought us hours of anime and gigs apon gigs of gaming pleasure. The creator of this technology deserves something.

    And if we cant bring him justice then send him copies of your pr0n to keep him busy.

  • by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:39PM (#9547212) Homepage
    Well, not a QUOTE exactly:

    As Homer is walking through a landfill:
    • BETAMAX TAPES
    • LASER DISCS
    • RESERVED FOR DVDs.
  • by CA_Jim ( 786327 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:51PM (#9547284)
    First, he took options instead of pay. Isn't that a warning sign? Nobody forced him to take options. He got greedy.

    Secondly, he was senior management and had the people skills of a caveman. Do we want to feel sorry for bad managers who get fired? Taking sympathy to a whole new and undeserving level.
  • by Fuzzums ( 250400 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:52PM (#9547287) Homepage
    Just how many DVD's can you buy from 10 mln...
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @09:57PM (#9547323)
    There's options, and there's options. One is vaporware.

    1: If they gave him the options, but didn't vest them (he can't actually exercise them until they're vested, a gottcha with most options) then there was nothing he could do, short of sabotaging the TW-AOL merger, to protect their value. If that's the case, then TW-AOL should be reamed royally with a rusty post-hole digger. He's still dumb for not demanding immediate vesting, but TW-AOL was screwing him from the beginning with this vesting crap.

    2: If his options were vested, and he didn't exercise them before the crash^H^H^H^H^H slide in value, then he screwed himself for not paying attention and/or the greed of thinking they'd be worth even more if he only waitied a little longer. Sorry Charlie, but you don't have a case for that.

    Of course the article doesn't clarify the point above. It's ever so much more inflamitory to say he once had options worth $135M (which was no such thing if he couldn't exercise them) and eventually had to settle for a $10M severence -- which is more than I'm going to make this month.

    If the guy is good, then he's employable. He's already working again for several top companies. Don't get out the violins for him yet.

  • by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @10:18PM (#9547424) Homepage Journal
    "Warren Lieberfarb. The former chief of Warner Home Video deserved a round of cheers for doggedly pursuing his vision of the new format. Lieberfarb, more than any other person, merits credit for making the DVD a reality. He didn't invent the technology. More important, he saw its potential to transform the industry. So he cajoled, strong-armed and bargained with industry players around the world to set aside their parochial interests and sign on to a universal standard for the new format."

    First, let's put things into perspective here: Lieberfarb is a salesman; nothing more, nothing less. He didn't make the DVD and he sure as heck isn't the father. THAT person is probably stuck in a lab somewhere getting a bigger shaft in this end of the deal than Lieberfarb on his worst day. What's more, Lieberwhatever got happily accepted his huge-ass bonus on top of his regular pay: Time Warner stock options once worth as much as $135 million. He obviously accepted it, so whose fault is it that he didn't cash out in time?? Uh-huh. It's the stock market, so accept the risks already. On top of that, he gets a cool 10M in severence. Why aren't I feeling sorry for this guy???

    "Say Boss, I know I accepted that 135m in stock options and all, but I didn't cash out on time, so how about giving me lots more money it its place...?" ...During tough financial times in Timewarner-ville even. And don't tell me that stock isn't worth anything. Go look up stock symbols TWX and TWTC. A former shadow of itself, sure, but it's still got market potential.

    From every angle I look at this, it sounds like Lieberwhatsit nailed his own damn coffin. From pissing people off to letting himself get talked into unwise financial decision. And while I know corporations can be meat factories, you just don't off and fire somebody who made you tons of money unless he's being a serious ass in most cases.

    This guy ain't the poor lackey under the thumb of a giant coporate comglomorate here as is being skewed here. He painted the pentagram on his forehead, danced with the demons and got his reward, promptly screwing himself over in the process. Judgement is for the defendant; One soul please.
  • It's a market mystery, much like the Internet was. The Internet was humming along for a quarter century, then all of sudden, whammo. Early adopters were there from the beginning, but there was something about the mass market that wasn't ready until 1994. What, I'm still not sure.

    Same with home theater. Back in 1983, There was a store down the road from where I live called "Future Tech" that was the inspiration to all us Northern Virginia nerds at the time -- half Atari home computers and half home theater (before that term was coined). In the back was a room plastered with foam sound panels, a 10 foot diagonal Kloss front-projection screen, LaserDisc, and surround sound. It wasn't that different than a DVD/big screen/surround setup of today.

    Due to still being in school, it wasn't until 1988 that I had my own home theater. So when DVD/home theater became the rage in 1998, I'm like, OK, so what? The video quality is no better than LaserDisc.

    Back in the 1980's we were all waiting for HDTV. Some were even holding off buying NTSC TV's because they thought they'd have to throw them out when HDTV came out just around the corner. Marc Wielage on CompuServe's CEFORUM (the moral equivalent of Commander Taco on Slashdot in the 1980's) kept trying to make bets that HDTV would not come out before 1990, and no one would take him up on it. It's 2004 and we still don't have pre-recorded HDTV movies.

    If it weren't for DVD's, I'm sure we'd have digital video HDTV LaserDiscs by now. DVD's may have made the studios money, but they're no friend of the videophile.

    • by geek ( 5680 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:12AM (#9548110)
      "It's a market mystery, much like the Internet was. The Internet was humming along for a quarter century, then all of sudden, whammo. Early adopters were there from the beginning, but there was something about the mass market that wasn't ready until 1994. What, I'm still not sure."

      There wasn't an OS easy enough for idiots to use until 1995. Your question has been answered.

      "Same with home theater. Back in 1983, There was a store down the road from where I live called "Future Tech" that was the inspiration to all us Northern Virginia nerds at the time -- half Atari home computers and half home theater (before that term was coined). In the back was a room plastered with foam sound panels, a 10 foot diagonal Kloss front-projection screen, LaserDisc, and surround sound. It wasn't that different than a DVD/big screen/surround setup of today."

      People couldn't afford the price tags and the equipment was crap by todays standards. Maybe you can afford new speakers every year after blowing them but most of us can not. Projection screens were/are crap also, good for only a few years before warping/fading/losing quality. Nevermind the time period you are speaking of "BUY AMERICAN!" was on almost every bumper sticker you saw.

      "Due to still being in school, it wasn't until 1988 that I had my own home theater. So when DVD/home theater became the rage in 1998, I'm like, OK, so what? The video quality is no better than LaserDisc."

      Oh you mean those extremely large discs that scratched like mad? It's hard enough keeping a tiny DVD clean and in decent condition, surely something with 10 times the surface area must be better. LaserDisc was a step backward for people. No one wanted to use an entire shelf for relatively small number of movies. They also couldn't be carried in backpacks/purses or easily put on store shelves.

      "Back in the 1980's we were all waiting for HDTV. Some were even holding off buying NTSC TV's because they thought they'd have to throw them out when HDTV came out just around the corner. Marc Wielage on CompuServe's CEFORUM (the moral equivalent of Commander Taco on Slashdot in the 1980's) kept trying to make bets that HDTV would not come out before 1990, and no one would take him up on it. It's 2004 and we still don't have pre-recorded HDTV movies."

      Back in the 80's a significantly large segment of the population were still watching black and white TV's. You might as well have been talking about moonbases and cities under the sea. "You're living in a dreamworld Neo". You need the blue pill my friend.

      "If it weren't for DVD's, I'm sure we'd have digital video HDTV LaserDiscs by now. DVD's may have made the studios money, but they're no friend of the videophile."

      Videophiles are as utterly retarded as audiophiles. You assume others give a shit about every minute detail, you spend your entire lifes savings for a few extra pixels on a digital medium that isn't even real and blame others for not adopting your same pathology.
    • The Internet was humming along for a quarter century, then all of sudden, whammo. Early adopters were there from the beginning, but there was something about the mass market that wasn't ready until 1994. What, I'm still not sure.

      I would say two factors: 1) The proliferation of modems as a built-in in new computers, and 2) much much more importantly, Winsock. The average person didn't want to connect to a unix prompt and run mail or pine. Being able to run Internet applications on their own windows pcs sp

  • by Handpaper ( 566373 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:02PM (#9547662)
    Microsoft controls technology for compressing video onto high-definition discs
    AFAIK, the only relevant tech here is WMV, which is merely an implementation of the MPEG-4 standard, and as such cannot be patented or otherwise encumbered.
    Methinks he'd be better off (read less likely to be screwed over) by talking to the good people at XviD [xvid.org]. Indeed, if he can arrange licensing to permit official binary distribution of the best MPEG-4 codec, we could all win.

    • WMV, which is merely an implementation of the MPEG-4 standard, and as such cannot be patented or otherwise encumbered.

      WMV is NOT based on MPEG-4, although it does use some of the same technologies, but since Microsoft owns a few MPEG-4 patents, they can use them and license them as they see fit.

      WMV is not controlled by the MPEGLA, who sets the price for MPEG-4.
  • by Teancum ( 67324 ) <robert_horning AT netzero DOT net> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:13PM (#9547751) Homepage Journal
    I am kicking myself now for forgetting his name too.

    I met him at COMDEX while I was visiting the Toshiba booth back in '97. I was in the process of writing a DVD-Video authoring system, and it was refreshing at the time to talk to somebody who actually had a clue regarding the internals of the format, and I got a few pointers from him at the time. What was particularly interesting, besides having him wander around the corporate booth unescorted by salesmen, was the fact he was hiding out in a comparatively obscure corner of the 10,000 sq. foot booth hanging around a bunch of chips and data sheets. A definite /. type geek here. If anybody can remember his name, I (and the /. crowd here) would totally appreciate it.

    While Lieberfarb may get the credit, it was a bunch of geeks working primarily for the founders of the DVD Forum that actually got it working, and it was not an easy accomplishment. The Kareoke features of DVD, in particular, as well as oriental character encoding (which is why DVD uses sub-pictures rather than ASCII to encode text... a good idea BTW), show a strong bias toward Japanese companies and some really strange bureaucratic design compromises. I wish I knew more about the history of DVD-Video, but the format certainly whent through several design changes before it was formally released, including some major design goals that changed mid-way through the development process. I would like to see that story fully told.
  • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:17AM (#9548136) Homepage Journal
    He got a $10 Million severance package. There are a lot of places that I'd leave for that much :-)

    Most people behind technical innovations that make billions for their employers don't get even 100K bonus. I think the inventor of the LED made a few hundred. In this case the fellow brokered the adoption of a single format across all players in both the media and computer industry, which is a big deal for a manager, although he did not invent the technology.

    Bruce

  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @02:02AM (#9548570) Homepage
    " He didn't invent the technology. More important, he saw its potential to transform the industry."

    Right there, in black and white. Inventing the technology wasn't important; oh no, it's *hyping* the technology that's the real milestone here! Without the hype, the DVD technology might still exist but we could've missed out on all those billions - and then what use would the technology be?

    The article writer should give up the pen and see if he can't get a job as fluffer for hollywood executive types. Surely he's got to be pretty damned good as swallowing cock by now.

    Max
  • Hold on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsangc ( 177574 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @02:03AM (#9548578)
    I see a lot of complaints here that this fellow didn't invent the technology, but I don't think people are giving enough credit for what he DID do.

    First, he aligned several multibillion dollar international companies (both content and hardware) to agree on a standard. Many of technically minded here often disparage "PHB" type activities such as negotiation or selling because they don't understand how difficult it is or the nuance and diplomacy (or aggressiveness) it requires. It's tough work yet this guy's efforts at such high level meetings obviously paid off. I don't think anyone should minimize this accomplishment. It's harder than you think.

    Second, it's often vision that is much more important that technology. It's really easy to think of the next evolution of a product, to make it faster, or cheaper, but it's difficult to see the next "revolution", especially the business model that comes with it. Again, this is one of those Slashdot things that gets ridiculed to Underpants Gnomes references--it's simply not as obvious as "3. Profit!". Finding the use or market for a technology is as tough as creating the technology itself. Often, it's harder, especially to make the link to established markets or models. This fellow figured out a way to make money off of DVD and to revive a sagging distribution channel.
  • by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:29AM (#9548923)
    In which case he can burn in hell ;-)

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...