4 ms·

tl;dr: Microsoft will sell to any USA-approved entity because their number one goal is to maximize shareholder value as a USA-based corporation. Unless they're

tl;dr: Microsoft will sell to any USA-approved entity because their number one goal is to maximize shareholder value as a USA-based corporation. Unless they're a public benefit corporation, an FFRDC, or one of any variety of non-profits, this is their only goal. (probably missed a few, but you get the point) --- Obvious point aside, here's a challenge: if this bothers you as an entrepreneur, start your next idea off as a public benefit corporation or equivalent, or roll your existing firm into one. Tread new ground. Need inspiration? https://www.navapbc.com https://www.navapbc.com Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation

skybrian 8y ago
In practice, there are a lot of ways to arguably maximize shareholder value, so this gives management a lot of leeway to do what they want. For-profit company cultures can differ drastically. The real driver is stock options and other ways that employees (including the CEO) get rewarded for making the stock go up. This does not necessarily mean that it's the company's only goal any more than getting paid necessarily makes you a soulless worker drone who will do anything for money. But it does tend to encourage people to celebrate profits.
eesmith 8y ago
If (for example) half the employees leave in protest, causing shareholder value to drop, then the decision was a bad one, yes? If that happens with Microsoft, should the shareholders file suit since the management decision to do weapons development caused the shareholder value to decrease, yes? That is, by protesting and potentially quitting (or 'work to rule' or any of many well-known practices), the employees have the ability to determine what "maximize shareholder value" means.
anticensor 8y ago
> Unless they're a public benefit corporation, an FFRDC, or one of any variety of non-profits, this is their only goal Their primary goal. Major difference. The other is business.

skybrian 8y ago

In practice, there are a lot of ways to arguably maximize shareholder value, so this gives management a lot of leeway to do what they want. For-profit company cultures can differ drastically. The real driver is stock options and other ways that employees (including the CEO) get rewarded for making the stock go up. This does not necessarily mean that it's the company's only goal any more than getting paid necessarily makes you a soulless worker drone who will do anything for money. But it does tend to encourage people to celebrate profits.

eesmith 8y ago

If (for example) half the employees leave in protest, causing shareholder value to drop, then the decision was a bad one, yes? If that happens with Microsoft, should the shareholders file suit since the management decision to do weapons development caused the shareholder value to decrease, yes? That is, by protesting and potentially quitting (or 'work to rule' or any of many well-known practices), the employees have the ability to determine what "maximize shareholder value" means.

anticensor 8y ago

> Unless they're a public benefit corporation, an FFRDC, or one of any variety of non-profits, this is their only goal Their primary goal. Major difference. The other is business.