|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
just a thought.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
The way to tell who trumps whom is to look at who prevailed in the public
statement battle at the time. During the cross-examination of Scott McNealy's,
Google's lawyer, the very capable Mr. Van Nest, finished up
with:
Google: Mr. Schwartz had a blog as CEO, right?
Scott
McNealy: I didn't read it.
Google: You never shut it down, did
you?
Scott McNealy: No.
Either Scott McNealy did not have
sufficient horsepower to shut down the CEO's blog or, as Chairman of the Board,
he shirked his fiduciary responsibility in not doing it (assuming that Sun's
corporate position was different from what was being portrayed in the CEO's
blog). The third possibility, of course, is that Scott McNealy was simply lying
and the official position of Sun at the time was exactly as Jonathan Schwartz
wrote in his blog.
It surely seems to me that (CEO) Jonathan Schwartz trumped
(Chariman of the Board) Scott McNealy at the time and, if Oracle cannot rewrite
that bit of history, it is devastating to their case.
If Oracle is correct,
they should be suing Scott McNealy for not "correcting" the misstatements of the
CEO in his blog (or for not caring enough to know what his CEO was up to ... I
didn't read it ... who really believes that?). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
If Schwartz was CEO; He decides.
He has to answer to the board.
It is the boards duty to ensure the company is meeting its fiscal, legal and
regulatory obligations to its shareholders, regulators and staff.
It is also the responsibility of the board to appoint, support, and review the
progress of, the CEO
It is also the remit of the board to set broad governing policies and objectives
for the company as a whole.
The CEO is appointed to take the decisions he chooses.
the CEO is not appointed to be the conveyor of decisions made by the board.
The CEO is expected (note:not required) to take decisions that are aligned with
the polices and objectives set by the board
If the board does not like the decisions that a CEO has taken, they have the
option to request (note: not demand) that the CEO reconsider or replace the
CEO.
If Schwarz elected not to sue and the board disagreed then he should have been
dismissed, the fact that he wasn't indicates that the board(and therefore the
company) is tacitly aligned with Schwarz decision, irrespective of the fact that
individual board members, or even the Chairman, may not be.
Schwarz is top trump.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
The Board is the High King, the CEO is the Prime Minister.
The law uses control to determine primacy. The Board appoints the CEO, and can
terminate him, the Board sets the CEO's pay, and the CEO reports to the Board
and operates at the Board's discretion. Control therefore rests with the Board,
and the CEO is subordinate.
However, that's the wrong question. The real issue is did the Board exercise
that control? The evidence shows they did not, therefore, the CEO was acting
within his authority, and within the Board's discretion. If the Board disgreed
with Schwartz, they should have acted. They did not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 05:14 AM EDT |
I can see Schwartz being asked, on what date the meeting take place, who
was there, what was said.
I can also see oracle getting the witnesses together to refute his evidence.
Schwartz is a lone character, acting against his ex employee who fired him,
and who's evidence is refuted by every single person at sun.
If I was him I wouldn't want to go on the stand again.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 08:11 AM EDT |
The CEO trumps the Chairman. The chairman is only one member of the Board of
Directors and his opinion should be treated no different than any other persons.
The CEO is the day to day manager of the company and must act within the
guidelines set by the Board. If the Board had an opinion then it could be found
by simply checking the minutes of their meeting. Since Oracle never produced any
such minutes, I think it is safe to say the Board never held a vote on the
matter.
Since the Board never contradicted the CEO either before or after his statements
it can be assumed that they approved them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
