Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 09:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 525023
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Responsibility to Share Holders
by shmerl on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 17:06
in reply to "Responsibility to Share Holders"
Nokia has a responsibility to its shareholders to defend its portfolio. It might not be the the most popular choice, but as the law stands things like this is what any good company Should do.
This phrase sounds like a verbatim quote of usual nonsense talk of all patent aggressors. It's like saying "the government has responsibility for its citizens, so we need to attack the neighboring country to get some resources". Aggressors are aggressors. The notion that any good company would do thins is totally wrong. Good ones aren't acting as aggressive thugs.
RE[2]: Responsibility to Share Holders
by Adurbe on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 18:05
in reply to "RE: Responsibility to Share Holders"
How much Nokia is worth is directly linked to their share price.
Nokia is sacking people like there is no tomorrow. R+D costs MUST be recouped or its not financially viable to maintain the workforce doing it.
In your ideal world, Nokia spend all the money on the development of tech then allow everyone to use it for free? Great to say, but in practice if you worked at Nokia (and I know many that do) would you rather be employed or Nokia not pursue revenue?
I wont even start on how many normal people have their savings linked to this company
RE[2]: Responsibility to Share Holders
by Soulbender on Wed 4th Jul 2012 05:01
in reply to "RE: Responsibility to Share Holders"
It's like saying "the government has responsibility for its citizens, so we need to attack the neighboring country to get some resources".
Personally I like the one where the government has a responsibility for its citizens to protect them from being robbed of their freedoms by commercial entities.





Member since:
2005-07-06
Nokia has a responsibility to its shareholders to defend its portfolio. It might not be the the most popular choice, but as the law stands things like this is what any good company Should do.
As their price has plummeted recently any positive news/income to boost their price (in theory)