3 ms·
>their first duty is to their share holders. Even if this is entirely true, it is quite possible that fighting the law more aggressively may be in their share
by billswift 15y ago
>their first duty is to their share holders.
Even if this is entirely true, it is quite possible that fighting the law more aggressively may be in their share holders best long-term interest. An excessive focus on the extremely short term has caused many businesses quite a lot of trouble over the last century. For a really interesting analysis of the decline of a machine-tool manufacturing company (the most thorough discussion of the issues I know of) see Max Holland's When the Machine Stopped, about the decline and collapse of Burgmaster, a mid-century "start-up" by an inventor.
- learc83 15y agoI meant not throwing away money in respect to suggestions that they out right refuse a legal order. Not that they hire more lawyers to attempt to change that legal order. I was talking about the prospect of them breaking the law.