News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Instagram's official response. Parent comment

Re:Instagram's official response by mpyne on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:27PM (#4940276)
There was a verbal offer with specific dollar amounts ($525 million, in fact), an offer specific enough that Instagram had to back out of it before it was signed. I'm not talking about filling out an SEC-mandated press release, I'm talking about a direct question from state lawyers about whether there were any offers from other companies besides Facebook, and Systrom lied and then tried to employ weasel words about "formal offers" to talk about something else.

Can you at least read the article before talking about generalities of mergers&acquisitions?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Instagram's official response by cynicalkane on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:34PM (#4940301)
What the hell? Responding carefully and specifically to a lawyer's question is not suspicious, it's standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved. Systrom has no obligation to spill the beans about anything that some guy on the Internet thinks might be called an offer, and courtrooms have rules against assigning malicious interpretations thereunto.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Instagram's official response by uptown on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @08:45PM (#4940755)
"carefully and specifically ... standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved."

You know - just like the terms and conditions.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Instagram's official response by jonknee on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:58PM (#4940639)
Spilling the beans was exactly the point of his questioning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Instagram's official response by mburshteyn on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:10PM (#4940475)
Nice thereunto.
[ Parent | on HN ]