6 ms·

"Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want thei

by mugngf 15y ago

"Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want their risk negated." I'm a shareholder, and you just stated the most moronic thing I've ever read on HN. No, we don't condone illegal activities. Putting your money into an operation that acts criminally doesn't get you good returns. Funny how you love to speculate though.

0x12 15y ago
It was illegal (and public) long before the DOJ went after google. Call me cynical but I see this as just another way to get some money out of google. If the plaintiffs donate the proceeds (if successful) to charity I'll change my mind. After all, they're asking for cash: "The lawsuits demanded that the directors and executives make good the $500 million, and be required to pay damages to be decided by a jury to "punish defendants and to make an example of defendants." Not for some kind of ethical oversight or other real remedy as 'concerned shareholders' would. Business as usual. Do you continue to hold stock in this company that has been convicted? (from your writing it seems that you do) If so why? Are you a part of the lawsuit? What are you going to do with the proceeds?
- jancona 15y ago
  I'll change my mind if the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' lawyers donate the proceeds to charity.
- mugngf 15y ago
  Should Paul Graham give up his equity because of the illegal spam AirBnB initiated on Craigslist without his knowledge?
  - 0x12 15y ago
    > You just stated the most moronic thing I have ever read on HN. Likewise. You can't continue to hold google stock today while at the same time railing against their ethics and suing them. That's a ridiculous position. PG & AirBnB have nothing to do with that.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"Call me cynical but I see this as just another way to get some money out of google." I won't call it "cynical". I'll call it "business."
masklinn 15y ago
> I'm a shareholder, and you just stated the most moronic thing I've ever read on HN. No, we don't condone illegal activities. Which is why you really mean you were a shareholder until this issue started coming about around 2007-2008, right? > Putting your money into an operation that acts criminally doesn't get you good returns. Not if you can just sue the operation when it gets busted anyway.

by mugngf 15y ago

0x12 15y ago

It was illegal (and public) long before the DOJ went after google. Call me cynical but I see this as just another way to get some money out of google. If the plaintiffs donate the proceeds (if successful) to charity I'll change my mind. After all, they're asking for cash: "The lawsuits demanded that the directors and executives make good the $500 million, and be required to pay damages to be decided by a jury to "punish defendants and to make an example of defendants." Not for some kind of ethical oversight or other real remedy as 'concerned shareholders' would. Business as usual. Do you continue to hold stock in this company that has been convicted? (from your writing it seems that you do) If so why? Are you a part of the lawsuit? What are you going to do with the proceeds?

jancona 15y ago
I'll change my mind if the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' lawyers donate the proceeds to charity.
mugngf 15y ago
Should Paul Graham give up his equity because of the illegal spam AirBnB initiated on Craigslist without his knowledge?
- 0x12 15y ago
  > You just stated the most moronic thing I have ever read on HN. Likewise. You can't continue to hold google stock today while at the same time railing against their ethics and suing them. That's a ridiculous position. PG & AirBnB have nothing to do with that.
brudgers 15y ago
>"Call me cynical but I see this as just another way to get some money out of google." I won't call it "cynical". I'll call it "business."

masklinn 15y ago

> I'm a shareholder, and you just stated the most moronic thing I've ever read on HN. No, we don't condone illegal activities. Which is why you really mean you were a shareholder until this issue started coming about around 2007-2008, right? > Putting your money into an operation that acts criminally doesn't get you good returns. Not if you can just sue the operation when it gets busted anyway.