David Schwartz wrote: > "Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : > >>> No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying >>>the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders? > >>You stated it literally as if making maximum profit for the >>shareholders were the only consideration in determining conduct. > > No, I did not. I said that their obligation is to their shareholders.
As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna... I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations. Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation to their clients, who pay them for their services, and to any individual or entity which might be harmed by their actions. A classic case in point would be Philip Morris, who did everything they could to protect their shareholders, but who shirked their duty of care to their customers and the the public at large. They have since paid heavily for that failure. >>If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more. > > I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding > going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side. All that means to me is that your misunderstanding is not deliberate. <g> Luke -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
