Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Luke Webber" <luke at webber.com.au> wrote in message 
news:4355ea72$1_3 at news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...

> As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna...

> I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations. 
> Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation 
> to their clients, who pay them for their services, and to any individual 
> or entity which might be harmed by their actions.

    They have obligations to their clients because (and only because) 
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in 
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the 
harm these failures will do to the shareholders. First and formost, 
companies exist to do the will of their shareholders.

> A classic case in point would be Philip Morris, who did everything they 
> could to protect their shareholders, but who shirked their duty of care to 
> their customers and the the public at large. They have since paid heavily 
> for that failure.

    You mean their shareholders paid heavily. ;)

>>>If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more.

>>     I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding 
>> going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side.

> All that means to me is that your misunderstanding is not deliberate. <g>

    No misunderstanding. Corporations exist specifically to do the will of 
their shareholders. There are other theoritcal models of corporations (for 
example, wherein the shareholders only provide the capital to execute the 
will of the directors), but Microsoft is certainly not a corporation of this 
type.

    DS