Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Sarbanes-Oxley

dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–25 of 25 posts

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Sarbanes-Oxley

#21

Post by warmfuzzykitten »

gojomo wrote: post #10
cscotta wrote: post #2

Around page 28-29, you'll find the Court's opinion on Sarbanes-Oxley and its future. In short, it appears they strike down a provision that allows the executive branch to remove a member from the board of directors, leaving the rest of the law intact. Apologies in advance, and please correct me - I'm neither a lawyer or an expert on Sarbox. [Edit: See comment below by kgrin] This seems to be the most relevant portion…

they strike down a provision that allows the executive branch to remove a member from the board As with another sibling comment, you've got it exactly backwards. The Court struck down a clause that limited the ability of the President/SEC to remove members. The President now has greater discretion, not less.

No, the SEC has greater discretion. The President's authority, as before, is limited to removing the head of the SEC and he can only do this for good cause.

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Sarbanes-Oxley

#22

Post by patio11 »

mburns wrote: post #19
jrockway wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any communication between employees must be archived and stored in some super-special repository. Any tool that doesn't store its data in said super-special repository is a crime to use. I'm surprised we don't have to record our in-person chats with a wearable video camera.

Do these super-special repositories have a decent API?

This type of tool puts the capital E in Big Freaking Enterprise. Not only do they not have decent APIs, to the extent that they do have APIs at all they're written in whatever the best practice was for Java architecture astronauts 10 years ago (I say that with as much love as I can muster, having been one), and the API is not laid out according to programmer utility but rather according to ossification of business practice and/or the whims of twenty-something Congressional staffers who would not know a program if it bit their Blackberry.

Basically, it is the same story as almost all enterprise software: abandon all hope ye who enter here.

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Sarbanes-Oxley

#24

Post by pw »

patio11 wrote: post #22
mburns wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do these super-special repositories have a decent API?

This type of tool puts the capital E in Big Freaking Enterprise. Not only do they not have decent APIs, to the extent that they do have APIs at all they're written in whatever the best practice was for Java architecture astronauts 10 years ago (I say that with as much love as I can muster, having been one), and the API is not laid out according to programmer utility but rather according to ossification of business pr…

Why does enterprise software so rarely have good APIs?

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Sarbanes-Oxley

#25

Post by jrockway »

pw wrote: post #24
patio11 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of tool puts the capital E in Big Freaking Enterprise. Not only do they not have decent APIs, to the extent that they do have APIs at all they're written in whatever the best practice was for Java architecture astronauts 10 years ago (I say that with as much love as I can muster, having been one), and the API is not laid out according to programmer utility but rather according to ossification of business pr…

Why does enterprise software so rarely have good APIs?

Because it's designed and implemented by a huge team with no vision except for how far away payday is.
Post reply on HN