2 ms·

On the first point, yes, this is a frequent misunderstanding of the law. The management of a company has a general fiduciary duty to shareholders, but does not

On the first point, yes, this is a frequent misunderstanding of the law. The management of a company has a general fiduciary duty to shareholders, but does not have any kind of narrow legal obligation to maximize profits, certainly not over any specific timeframe. They have quite large leeway to make decisions on the basis of whatever strategy they think is correct, and they may value things such as "customer loyalty" and "brand perceptions" in whatever way they see fit. If Google's management decided, for example, that it was important for their reputation that they stand behind their products long-term, and therefore that nothing would be shut down except in extraordinary circumstances, there'd be no legal problem with adopting that policy, even if it lost money short/medium-term. That's simply a strategic decision, which might be wise or unwise, but which courts have no authority to second-guess. Shareholders could vote out the board if they disagree with it, but there would be no violation of fiduciary duty.

hugofirth 14y ago
I am not suggesting the the law is black and white. Nor am I saying that there is anything codified as law that would require Google to do anything so specific as moth ball reader. The decision to mothball reader (rightly or wrongly) was clearly a business decision: Google obviously felt it could better serve its user-base as a whole (and by extension its shareholders) by distributing its time and LOCs in other ways. The reason I brought up the law was in support of the general point that Google has every right to distribute its finite time and resources with this tenet in mind. If they chose to keep Reader going it would be purely on the basis that its niche user base is somewhat influential, and might have some success on the future success of their products. That is not in service of it's wider user bases' interest.

hugofirth 14y ago

I am not suggesting the the law is black and white. Nor am I saying that there is anything codified as law that would require Google to do anything so specific as moth ball reader. The decision to mothball reader (rightly or wrongly) was clearly a business decision: Google obviously felt it could better serve its user-base as a whole (and by extension its shareholders) by distributing its time and LOCs in other ways. The reason I brought up the law was in support of the general point that Google has every right to distribute its finite time and resources with this tenet in mind. If they chose to keep Reader going it would be purely on the basis that its niche user base is somewhat influential, and might have some success on the future success of their products. That is not in service of it's wider user bases' interest.