Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th May 2011 21:29 UTC, submitted by teigetje
Microsoft It turns out that a lot of people haven't been paying attention. Over the weekend, a story about how Microsoft is earning more from HTC's Android devices than from its own Windows Phone 7 sales spread all across the web, with surprised reactions everywhere. Anyone who has been paying attention to Microsoft's recent patent trolling regarding Android could've seen this coming.
Thread beginning with comment 475505
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
japh
Member since:
2005-11-11

In fact, by not suing they may be braking the law since they are obligated to make as much money for their share holders as possible, by law.


Can you show me that law? Does it say anything about long term or short term? Does it say you have to make as much money as possible no matter what it does to the public image of the company?

What you write is of course nonsense.
They wouldn't have to sue if they didn't want to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

japh,

"Can you show me that law? Does it say anything about long term or short term? Does it say you have to make as much money as possible no matter what it does to the public image of the company?"

It sounded funny to me too.

It's boardmember's responsibility to act in the interests of shareholders. But it's the shareholder's responsibility to elect (or fire) the board members.

For this reason, I think it's unlikely we'll ever find corporate board members who are against software patents. That view would likely prevent them from getting elected to the board in the first place.

And, I have to admit, this is an excellent (though selfish) reason for business people to speak about software patents favorably, it keeps more doors open for themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 2

japh Member since:
2005-11-11


It's boardmember's responsibility to act in the interests of shareholders. But it's the shareholder's responsibility to elect (or fire) the board members.


This is closer to the truth. But there is a conflict there. Shareholders wants quick profits while the board also have to look at what happens to the company in the long run.
Example: Microsoft wanted to buy yahoo. It would have been a quick win for the shareholders, but yahoo themselves felt that in the long run it was smarter not to sell.
Those in charge aren't in jail today, so I will have to assume that they didn't break any laws by not giving the shareholders the quick profit they wanted.

Reply Parent Score: 1

adinas Member since:
2005-08-17

Well, I'm no lawyer but I've read it enough times. For example you can see in this article: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?p=96 the author asks if a company is allowed to sacrifice profit for social responsibility. "First, may firms sacrifice profits in the social interest – given their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders? Does management have a fiduciary duty to maximize corporate profits in the interest of shareholders, or can it sacrifice profits by voluntarily exceeding the requirements of environmental law?". Now, if a company has a solid case against another company which would bring them profit, wouldn't you agree share holders would be pissed if the company didn't pursue it?

Reply Parent Score: 1