Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 228341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-05
This wouldn't be necessarily relevant, even if it were accurate. If someone, say Mr. Gassee, had some back-channel agreement of some sort (and I can't see how that's possible, frankly: corporations and corporate officers have fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, and even CEOs can't simply give corporate assets of significant value away on a whim) and it wasn't disclosed to Palm at the time of the purchase of Be's intellectual property, Palm can't be held to that agreement.
As I've written elsewhere, if you sell someone a car but fail to disclose that the bank holds a loan on it, you can't expect the buyer to pay you and the bank as well. And the buyer's gripe is with the seller, not with the bank.