3 ms·
I wouldn't be surprised if they had. Off the top of my head they made over $7 billion doing this and can consider the fine as a cost of doing business.
by boyter 13y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they had. Off the top of my head they made over $7 billion doing this and can consider the fine as a cost of doing business.
- sitkack 13y agoWhen companies do this, they should be fully audited and fined 300% profit, split evenly between the harmed company and the government. If that puts them out of business, so be it.
- sounds 13y agoThat would certainly discourage _getting caught_ violating the law. It would also tend to kill off the older companies (weak law of large numbers: if a company violates any of the laws that will kill it, and it exists long enough, it eventually gets caught and killed). It might even lead to some efforts at counter-legislation. For example, companies might lobby to _broaden_ the "get killed" legislation, which would result in lots of sympathy cases where companies were killed for "minor" offenses. Eventually the whole "kill the company" idea would fall out of favor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law (Companies will tend to view a government audit as a death sentence, since it would damage them so much even without a 300% fine.)
- Peaker 13y agoI'd support fines that are proportional to general revenue or profit. A fine must hurt. Also, an audit and 300% fines would probably not kill companies.