On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Chris Penn<[email protected]> wrote: > Whether it Micro$osft or Google, This kind of action is unethical. > So much so, it is almost childish. That this is good for the > stockholders. and therefore is alright. is a terrible excuse.
You were born 4 decade too late :-) > That is like saying that since the stockholders of 'Acme Insurance > Inc.' make more money, it is alright for 'Acme Insurance Inc.' to hold > out on paying a claim for as long as possible by convincing the the > claimant that the wait is typical and the competition is worse. > Regardless of the claimants urgency, the fiscal quarter looks better > and therefore the stockholders make more money, so the neglected to > the claimant is acceptable and should be (ethically) expected. You are correct. The fiduciary responsibilities of those officers representing a publicly owned company are to do things that are for the good of the company. In modern parlance, the good of the company is profits in the short term, and the long term be damned. Google is one of the few who also tends to do things that are both short and long term oriented, and NOT at the expense of the end user. A business policy is targeted solely for the business' bottom line. This is why many are pushing for the profit driven portions of medical care to be regulated/controlled/socialized (pick your buzz word). There's no easy answer. Someone loses no matter what route it ends up going. History is against it though. Clinton, and Bush Jr both failed to get their medical overhauls through. Too many influential people are against it. I'll end this here. -- Regards... Todd _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list [email protected] http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
