3 ms·

>This is not about Microsoft just doing 'stupid stuff sometimes' it is about institutionalized criminal behavior sanctioned at the highest level of one of the l

by yarou 12y ago

>This is not about Microsoft just doing 'stupid stuff sometimes' it is about institutionalized criminal behavior sanctioned at the highest level of one of the largest software companies in the world. Welcome to American corporate culture :) You have to keep in mind that Microsoft had a monopoly for a very long time. While their actions may, in your world view, be "criminal", as a corporation Microsoft was acting completely rationally. As a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders. You also have to keep in mind the historical context: back then, there was no such thing as "social responsibility".

jacquesm 12y ago
> As a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders. I keep hearing that but I don't actually believe that is true. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m...
- yarou 12y ago
  Perhaps obligation is a poor word choice. I meant it more in the sense of the invisible hand and rationality. As a rational actor, Microsoft was maximizing their utility, given whatever their utility function/curve is.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    By that reason we should all go into the drugs trade. I don't buy that for a second. Rational actors are not normally driven to illegal behavior unless someone makes a decision to that effect saying 'damn the consequences, let's commit this crime'. That's a very dangerous line to cross. It came within a whisker of getting Microsoft to be broken up and I can't believe that they would have taken that risk if they knew that was a possible consequence. And I firmly believe they should have been broken up, that would have sent a strong signal that anti-competitive behavior is not acceptable. Instead, now we have a bigger mess.
rbanffy 12y ago
Maximizing shareholder value would also include, I suppose, keeping the company reputation good enough so that talented people would still want to work with them and their products. That's not what happened here. I too was a Microsoft enthusiast once, but their bad behavior made me turn my back on them. Jacques and myself are certainly not alone in that decision.
- yarou 12y ago
  In theory, yes, and these days reputation plays an extremely important role because of the massive amounts of network effects social media and the like provide. I was never a fan of Microsoft because they historically shipped substandard products. (I remember the days of windows 3.1 on my p2) My post was merely trying to indicate that what Microsoft did in a monopoly position is not in any way unique or special. Every monopoly will behave in this manner, because corporations are rational actors.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Either that, or there is something about this theory that is usually the sociopaths who end up in top managerial positions.
cma 12y ago
If you aren't allowed to criticize a company because "as a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders," then that means their profitability calculation no longer has to include bad PR, because nothing will be bad PR once someone like you points out that the corporation had to do it--it's all very circular.
srean 12y ago
> As a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders. I wish for a world where this utterly dishonest lame duck trope stops appearing as frequently as it does.

by yarou 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

> As a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders. I keep hearing that but I don't actually believe that is true. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m...

yarou 12y ago
Perhaps obligation is a poor word choice. I meant it more in the sense of the invisible hand and rationality. As a rational actor, Microsoft was maximizing their utility, given whatever their utility function/curve is.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  By that reason we should all go into the drugs trade. I don't buy that for a second. Rational actors are not normally driven to illegal behavior unless someone makes a decision to that effect saying 'damn the consequences, let's commit this crime'. That's a very dangerous line to cross. It came within a whisker of getting Microsoft to be broken up and I can't believe that they would have taken that risk if they knew that was a possible consequence. And I firmly believe they should have been broken up, that would have sent a strong signal that anti-competitive behavior is not acceptable. Instead, now we have a bigger mess.

rbanffy 12y ago

Maximizing shareholder value would also include, I suppose, keeping the company reputation good enough so that talented people would still want to work with them and their products. That's not what happened here. I too was a Microsoft enthusiast once, but their bad behavior made me turn my back on them. Jacques and myself are certainly not alone in that decision.

yarou 12y ago
In theory, yes, and these days reputation plays an extremely important role because of the massive amounts of network effects social media and the like provide. I was never a fan of Microsoft because they historically shipped substandard products. (I remember the days of windows 3.1 on my p2) My post was merely trying to indicate that what Microsoft did in a monopoly position is not in any way unique or special. Every monopoly will behave in this manner, because corporations are rational actors.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Either that, or there is something about this theory that is usually the sociopaths who end up in top managerial positions.

cma 12y ago

If you aren't allowed to criticize a company because "as a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders," then that means their profitability calculation no longer has to include bad PR, because nothing will be bad PR once someone like you points out that the corporation had to do it--it's all very circular.

srean 12y ago

> As a public corporation, they have an obligation to maximize value for shareholders. I wish for a world where this utterly dishonest lame duck trope stops appearing as frequently as it does.