28th February 2008, 3:11 PM
Yes that's the "goal" but obligation is stretching it. When someone buys shares, does the company sign some sort of contract promising they will do everything possible? If not, I'd say there's no legal grounds for it, and really I'd rather a bunch of hipster doofases sitting around laptops in some Starbucks get screwed than the consumers. I think that's more important, but then again I also think selling "stocks" tends to corrupt a company a lot of the time too. Besides, in the long term that's in the share holder's best interests too.
Ya know the thing is when I heard the terms of the agreement with Blizzard's buyout, and recent statements from companies like EA about their new policy, I saw it as a great change a long time coming in how they deal with these things. Now it looks like share holders threatening to sue of all things is going to screw it all up. Seriously, they shouldn't be able to sue any more than a casino should be liable for someone throwing away their life savings on a gamble there.
Ya know the thing is when I heard the terms of the agreement with Blizzard's buyout, and recent statements from companies like EA about their new policy, I saw it as a great change a long time coming in how they deal with these things. Now it looks like share holders threatening to sue of all things is going to screw it all up. Seriously, they shouldn't be able to sue any more than a casino should be liable for someone throwing away their life savings on a gamble there.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)