Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Luke Webber]

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Roedy Green" <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website at munged.invalid> wrote in 
> message news:35jbl1dprs4v1o87i0tapc2husjqiqm6fi at 4ax.com...
>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz"
>><davids at webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
> 
>>>   No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying
>>>the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders?
> 
>>You stated it literally as if making maximum profit for the
>>shareholders were the only consideration in determining conduct.
> 
>     No, I did not. I said that their obligation is to their shareholders.

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.

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.

>>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>

Luke