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
Apple's really asking for it, so to speak | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
business looking after sharholder value does not mean a behaviour is moral
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT
Though it might be considered good business looking after ones shareholder, to
have your products built by kids under slave like conditions in countries that
have lax labor laws while turning a blind eye to such conditions would hardly be
considered moral by the majority in society.

In the same vein, the majority in society would not consider a job in the
prostitution business a moral career choice. In fact, the majority would
consider it a highly immoral choice.

It should never only be about making money!

And that's the point, Apple seems to have lost the plot and is chasing money at
all cost with no consideration to its brand or standing in the community and
definitely no consideration towards any moral principles, only chasing the
dollar at any cost.

This whole Apple thermonuclear war strategy does in fact look like a turf war
often seen in movies waged by drug or prostitution cartels. This is not the
movies.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That assumes that the stock market is moral.
Authored by: artp on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT
When I was in high school, I learned that the purpose of the
stock market was to raise capital for a company so that it
could expand, implement new projects, or bring out new
products.

That hasn't been the purpose of the stock market for a long,
long time now. With millisecond trading, options, short
selling and derivative trading, not to mention abuse of junk
bonds, the idea of stock has gotten father and farther
removed from its original purpose.

Corporate performance counts less than meeting the
forecasts. Making money [by the company] is now second place
to making money [for the investor].

Same administration that gutted corporate board
responsibility, removed liability for corporate agents, and
quit enforcing antitrust laws. Way back when.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple's really asking for it, so to speak
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT
"Apple is required to do what it thinks is best for it's
shareholders, if they think this is the best way
to make money... they should do it from that point of view."

But it isn't best for one's shareholders to ruin the brand
reputation of the company. These legal actions could be
profitable in the short run but disastrous in the long run,
if they destroy the loyalty Apple fans have had for so long.

As for "fiduciary responsibility", it isn't necessariy
"maximizing shareholder value" - it is to carry out the
company's mission conveyed to stockholders in what I think
is called the articles of incorporation (IANAL). So if this
document says the company is supposed to maximize value,
that is indeed what they are required to do, but a company
could be sold to shareholders with a more "moral" mission,
so to speak. IIRC Google is required to maintain a neutral
carbon footprint with carbon offsets, even if it costs some
money that would otherwise add to the company's profits.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple's really asking for it, so to speak
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Apple is required to do what it thinks is best for it's shareholders, if they think this is the best way to make money... they should do it from that point of view.

If the shareholders are who a company primarily works for, the shareholders are effectively what I would call customers. The product they buy for money is more money, and the purpose of the people buying goods or services is to supply that money. Somehow that doesn't sound like a sustainable economic model to me, and this mentality may well be part of the worldwide financial crisis. Perhaps we should go back to the old fashioned idea that a company's purpose is to add value in a market and serve their customers (buyers of products and services), while shareholders supply capital and get a fair share of the profits in return.

[ 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 )