4 ms·

I am not a lawyer but it would seem that the ebay v. craigslist ruling would have the same effect. http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp

I am not a lawyer but it would seem that the ebay v. craigslist ruling would have the same effect. http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...

jamesaguilar 14y ago
If you read the decision, it seems that it is not really about shareholder maximization as we are discussing here. Instead, Jim and Craig actively worked to minimize the value of eBay's shares. Also, the very article you cite discusses a few ways in which companies can fail to perfectly maximize profits yet still stay on the correct side of the law. One example is philanthropy.
- Retric 14y ago
  Except corporate philanthropy has limits. If the CEO of Exxon decided to donate 50% of all profits to philanthropy you can bet there would be a host of successful lawsuits. If on the other hand a company's charter stats that 50% of all profits are donated to charity before it goes public then you your unlikely to successively sue them for continuing to do so.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    On the third hand, extreme examples might not be relevant to a more minor tweak of profits like suing or not suing over one-click. If it's a matter of degrees, degrees matter.
    - Retric 14y ago
      True, enough. There are plenty of company's like IBM where giving up patent revenue without changes to the patent system would heavily impact there profits. However, IBM has donated a fair number of patents in the past. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html Along massive quantities of data. http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large-collection-of-patent-chemical-structures-to-nih-pubchem/ http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large...

jamesaguilar 14y ago

If you read the decision, it seems that it is not really about shareholder maximization as we are discussing here. Instead, Jim and Craig actively worked to minimize the value of eBay's shares. Also, the very article you cite discusses a few ways in which companies can fail to perfectly maximize profits yet still stay on the correct side of the law. One example is philanthropy.

Retric 14y ago
Except corporate philanthropy has limits. If the CEO of Exxon decided to donate 50% of all profits to philanthropy you can bet there would be a host of successful lawsuits. If on the other hand a company's charter stats that 50% of all profits are donated to charity before it goes public then you your unlikely to successively sue them for continuing to do so.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  On the third hand, extreme examples might not be relevant to a more minor tweak of profits like suing or not suing over one-click. If it's a matter of degrees, degrees matter.
  - Retric 14y ago
    True, enough. There are plenty of company's like IBM where giving up patent revenue without changes to the patent system would heavily impact there profits. However, IBM has donated a fair number of patents in the past. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html Along massive quantities of data. http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large-collection-of-patent-chemical-structures-to-nih-pubchem/ http://depth-first.com/articles/2011/12/15/ibm-donates-large...