decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
We Might Think That... | 170 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
We Might Think That...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 15 2012 @ 07:18 PM EDT
Maximizing shareholder value is the end result, but the
priorities are how you get there. Putting shareholders before
customers and employees will in the end deliver zero
shareholder value. We saw that with SCO

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

We Might Think That...
Authored by: PJ on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 06:30 AM EDT
That's actually a fairly new priority list item.
It's not traditionally the way it used to work,
nor is it proving to be a source of benefits to
the economy at large or the public or anyone but
the shareholders, who used to invest to help
a company get larger or whatever and now rape
and pillage and outsource and force a company
into bankruptcy if it benefits them and the
executives and do whatever makes
a quick buck. There is nothing in corporate law
that requires a company to take any such steps,
but there is enough that can be used to litigate
such issues that companies like Google and
Facebook set themselves up in such a way that
greedy shareholders can't ever get that kind
of stranglehold on the company.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )