Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-10-19, David Schwartz schreef <davids at webmaster.com>:
>
> "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.

Do I understand correctly.

Lets take the following situation:

A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.

-- 
Antoon Pardon