On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:23, Rich Morgan wrote:
> > So there it is. It was not greed but fighting for survival that made them
> > do it. Cornered with a slump in sales they signed a deal with the devil to
> > stay alive, so to speak.
>
> I think it raises some questions of business ethics. Is it ok for a
> company to do *anything* in order to stay afloat? Was it ethical for SCO
> to sue IBM based on non-existent Unix code in the Linux kernel? Was it
> ethical for Microsoft to finance the SCO suit? I mean, SCO was just
> trying to stay in business and the Microsoft money invested through
> Baystar was just a way to keep the doors open long enough for a buyout.
> That's ok, isn't it? Even if you destroy other companies in the process,
> as long as you're still in business "it's all fair" is the message I'm
> getting here.
Unfortunately corporations have usually little motivation, save personal
drive, to think of the greater good. They usually have to answer to the share
holders who as most, only think of money.
--Steve Szmidt
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:45:00 EDT