Satan,

You are from the UK I see.. as far as I know the UK is part of the EU!? I don't know why you are so anti EU... you are negative, suggestive, etc. I would appreciate it if you could be a bit more decent and stick to the facts.

fact: - business'es are meant to earn profit so that they can pay wages etc etc, & yes, the fatcats salaries, but we as little people, can do nothing about it.

What countries laws? The so-called EU is eroding them - who elected these self-serving councils/committees. How much of those fines goes back into the EU community & how much goes into the corrupt pockets of these committees?

So who is worse Intel or the EU?

---

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

---

The SETI@Home Gauntlet 2012 april 16 - 30| info / chat | STATS

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

---

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

I purchase I.T. kit @ trade cost, I then either use it to build a system or upgrade others. I have to pay for my time, & living expenses + taxes. To be able to purchase more, I have to make a reasonable profit.

Okay, lets stamp this out. INTEL/AMD, please send me an I7 cpu & a Phenom 955 for £0.01p - thank you very much.

Now we don't need governments or self seeking busybodies like the EU. Ain't life grand!

---

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

You don't get the full measure of what that duty entails. If they can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine than in following the law, that duty requires them to break the law!

It isn't profits that are evil, it is the requirement to maximize them.

---

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

You don't get the full measure of what that duty entails. If they can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine than in following the law, that duty requires them to break the law!

It isn't profits that are evil, it is the requirement to maximize them.

Then why did you say we should stamp out profits? I agree there should be regulations/laws to prevent businesses from abusing monopoly powers. There are plenty of good laws on the books already that do just that.

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

You don't get the full measure of what that duty entails. If they can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine than in following the law, that duty requires them to break the law!

It isn't profits that are evil, it is the requirement to maximize them.

Then why did you say we should stamp out profits?

I didn't. You apparently missed the word maximize before the word profit. Single concept not two different ones.

I agree there should be regulations/laws to prevent businesses from abusing monopoly powers. There are plenty of good laws on the books already that do just that.

But they don't. The rub is a sole prop is going to be as moral as the sole owner. A partnership or small closely held corporation can also be moral as they can decide on a moral code. A publicly traded corporation can not be moral because the chance exists that one shareholder of even one share of stock could sue if any opportunity for profit no matter how immoral is passed over. This is the crux of the problem and it is mandated by law.

---

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

You don't get the full measure of what that duty entails. If they can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine than in following the law, that duty requires them to break the law!

It isn't profits that are evil, it is the requirement to maximize them.

Then why did you say we should stamp out profits?

I didn't. You apparently missed the word maximize before the word profit. Single concept not two different ones.

I agree there should be regulations/laws to prevent businesses from abusing monopoly powers. There are plenty of good laws on the books already that do just that.

But they don't. The rub is a sole prop is going to be as moral as the sole owner. A partnership or small closely held corporation can also be moral as they can decide on a moral code. A publicly traded corporation can not be moral because the chance exists that one shareholder of even one share of stock could sue if any opportunity for profit no matter how immoral is passed over. This is the crux of the problem and it is mandated by law.

Since I am a stockholder, I would like to see how I could sue a company I own stock in if they make a poor business decision. That is hilarious!

lol Sell Sell Sell. and recommend sell on that stock. I'd think by owning a stock you'd be agreeing with the operations of a company. IF someone could get ahold of >50% of stock one could make a decision but thats highly unlikely

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Since I am a stockholder, I would like to see how I could sue a company I own stock in if they make a poor business decision. That is hilarious!

Stockholders routinely sue the companies they hold stock in (e.g eBay sues Craigslist), that's nothing new, what is interesting is that Gary C is suggesting stockholders could sue because a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits. I'd like to see the outcome of that kind of case ...

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

While the behavior of some companies is claimed to be a result of this duty, the problem is not the duty itself, but the company's understanding of it. As with all of us as individuals, it is incumbent on companies to be lawful in their operations. In other words there is no duty on a company, fiduciary or otherwise, to break the law. It's the very essence of the social contract, we accept the benefits the state provides us with while agreeing to the set of laws that the state defines.

When a company breaks the law, as Intel is alleged to have done, it is only right that they should pay a penalty. If that penalty results in higher costs for their customers, their customers can go to other vendors, which in this case seems appropriate, as Intel appears to have been trying to stop its potential customers from purchasing the goods of its competitors.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'd have to agree. If a company has to ask if it's illegal then it probably is. This is why Companies rarely ask that question and just go about making money how they see fit

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

lol Sell Sell Sell. and recommend sell on that stock. I'd think by owning a stock you'd be agreeing with the operations of a company. IF someone could get ahold of >50% of stock one could make a decision but thats highly unlikely

I do not own intel stock, thank you.

Since I am a stockholder, I would like to see how I could sue a company I own stock in if they make a poor business decision. That is hilarious!

Stockholders routinely sue the companies they hold stock in (e.g eBay sues Craigslist), that's nothing new, what is interesting is that Gary C is suggesting stockholders could sue because a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits. I'd like to see the outcome of that kind of case ...

Perhaps, but those stockholder have to have a large amount of capital in order to do battle with a corporation. Most stockholders do not have that kind of money to waste on lawyers.

Since I am a stockholder, I would like to see how I could sue a company I own stock in if they make a poor business decision. That is hilarious!

Stockholders routinely sue the companies they hold stock in (e.g eBay sues Craigslist), that's nothing new, what is interesting is that Gary C is suggesting stockholders could sue because a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits. I'd like to see the outcome of that kind of case ...

Perhaps, but those stockholder have to have a large amount of capital in order to do battle with a corporation. Most stockholders do not have that kind of money to waste on lawyers.

Nor would they have too, if enough stockholders felt that a case where a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits was worth pursuing, it's likely some lawyer somewhere would pick it up as a class action suit. It's amazing how many of this type of action are out there to be found.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Since I am a stockholder, I would like to see how I could sue a company I own stock in if they make a poor business decision. That is hilarious!

Stockholders routinely sue the companies they hold stock in (e.g eBay sues Craigslist), that's nothing new, what is interesting is that Gary C is suggesting stockholders could sue because a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits. I'd like to see the outcome of that kind of case ...

Perhaps, but those stockholder have to have a large amount of capital in order to do battle with a corporation. Most stockholders do not have that kind of money to waste on lawyers.

Nor would they have too, if enough stockholders felt that a case where a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits was worth pursuing, it's likely some lawyer somewhere would pick it up as a class action suit. It's amazing how many of this type of action are out there to be found.

There are lawyers who make their living by filing such suits. They don't have to win either, simply take a payment to make the action go away. It is the discovery in the case of all the incriminating documents that makes the company want to settle and not risk seeing a jury or worse public disclosure and resulting loss of brand value.

Let me make it clear I'm only talking about administrative laws where there only is a fine for breaking them. Laws that call for jail time are another matter.

As to a more actual example of this simply consider the design of the Ford Pinto gas tank. It was alleged that Ford had a study done on the estimate of cost of payouts for the people who would die from the alleged defect verses the cost of fixing the design. Of course once the memo came out the cost to the brand reputation far exceeded any cost to fix.

Another less than hypothetical case involves defense contractors and spare parts. Frequently they will sell parts to a country on the prohibited list but engage the services of an intermediary to transship the goods. Very rarely will ICE or DOD catch on to this sham sale. So things like complete F-14 engines will end up being sold to North Korea. Or at least that is what my friend who worked for Customs alleged when he seized the engines for not having proper export license.

For a hypothetical, consider say DirecTV not making sure its independent sellers don't call people on the do not call list. DirecTV could insist that its independent sellers not place such calls, but if the maximum civil fine it might have to pay is less than the profit it earns if it doesn't, then its duty is to not prevent such calls. Its first duty is not to the Government to obey laws but to its shareholders to maximize profit. This is all because the sheet of paper that is a corporation is the product of legal ethics. I say this needs to change and the first duty be to the Government to be a responsible citizen. Otherwise fines are simply a cost of doing business.

---

I live in the European Union.

I live in Canada EH!!!!!!!!!

---

There are lawyers who make their living by filing such suits. They don't have to win either, simply take a payment to make the action go away. It is the discovery in the case of all the incriminating documents that makes the company want to settle and not risk seeing a jury or worse public disclosure and resulting loss of brand value.

Let me make it clear I'm only talking about administrative laws where there only is a fine for breaking them. Laws that call for jail time are another matter.

As to a more actual example of this simply consider the design of the Ford Pinto gas tank. It was alleged that Ford had a study done on the estimate of cost of payouts for the people who would die from the alleged defect verses the cost of fixing the design. Of course once the memo came out the cost to the brand reputation far exceeded any cost to fix.

Another less than hypothetical case involves defense contractors and spare parts. Frequently they will sell parts to a country on the prohibited list but engage the services of an intermediary to transship the goods. Very rarely will ICE or DOD catch on to this sham sale. So things like complete F-14 engines will end up being sold to North Korea. Or at least that is what my friend who worked for Customs alleged when he seized the engines for not having proper export license.

For a hypothetical, consider say DirecTV not making sure its independent sellers don't call people on the do not call list. DirecTV could insist that its independent sellers not place such calls, but if the maximum civil fine it might have to pay is less than the profit it earns if it doesn't, then its duty is to not prevent such calls. Its first duty is not to the Government to obey laws but to its shareholders to maximize profit. This is all because the sheet of paper that is a corporation is the product of legal ethics. I say this needs to change and the first duty be to the Government to be a responsible citizen. Otherwise fines are simply a cost of doing business.

And some people treat speeding and parking tickets as an expense too while some businesses do act ethically. When businesses are caught acting in the way Intel is alleged to have done they suffer the consequences, and chances are, if the fines remain, Intel's behavior will change (and other companies will be wary).

The caller hypothetical is interesting, Verizon has gone after callers that flout the FCC regulations against auto-diallers calling its cell phone customers, even though it conceivable that it makes money from its customers as a result and is not itself in breach of the regulations. Presumably Verizon believes this is good publicity and will attract customers.

AFAIK, strictly speaking it is not DirectTV's duty not to carry the calls, it is the telemarketer's not to place them, though DirectTV could perform a similar function to Verizon and start proceedings against the telemarketers.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

There are lawyers who make their living by filing such suits. They don't have to win either, simply take a payment to make the action go away. It is the discovery in the case of all the incriminating documents that makes the company want to settle and not risk seeing a jury or worse public disclosure and resulting loss of brand value.

Let me make it clear I'm only talking about administrative laws where there only is a fine for breaking them. Laws that call for jail time are another matter.

As to a more actual example of this simply consider the design of the Ford Pinto gas tank. It was alleged that Ford had a study done on the estimate of cost of payouts for the people who would die from the alleged defect verses the cost of fixing the design. Of course once the memo came out the cost to the brand reputation far exceeded any cost to fix.

Another less than hypothetical case involves defense contractors and spare parts. Frequently they will sell parts to a country on the prohibited list but engage the services of an intermediary to transship the goods. Very rarely will ICE or DOD catch on to this sham sale. So things like complete F-14 engines will end up being sold to North Korea. Or at least that is what my friend who worked for Customs alleged when he seized the engines for not having proper export license.

For a hypothetical, consider say DirecTV not making sure its independent sellers don't call people on the do not call list. DirecTV could insist that its independent sellers not place such calls, but if the maximum civil fine it might have to pay is less than the profit it earns if it doesn't, then its duty is to not prevent such calls. Its first duty is not to the Government to obey laws but to its shareholders to maximize profit. This is all because the sheet of paper that is a corporation is the product of legal ethics. I say this needs to change and the first duty be to the Government to be a responsible citizen. Otherwise fines are simply a cost of doing business.

And some people treat speeding and parking tickets as an expense too while some businesses do act ethically. When businesses are caught acting in the way Intel is alleged to have done they suffer the consequences, and chances are, if the fines remain, Intel's behavior will change (and other companies will be wary).

It isn't a question of a business acting ethically, but what code of ethics they subscribe to. Some subscribe to a lawyers code of ethics where fines are costs of business. Others subscribe to a moral code of ethics where good citizenship is valued more. I think the latter should be mandatory.

The caller hypothetical is interesting, Verizon has gone after callers that flout the FCC regulations against auto-diallers calling its cell phone customers, even though it conceivable that it makes money from its customers as a result and is not itself in breach of the regulations. Presumably Verizon believes this is good publicity and will attract customers.

AFAIK, strictly speaking it is not DirectTV's duty not to carry the calls, it is the telemarketer's not to place them, though DirectTV could perform a similar function to Verizon and start proceedings against the telemarketers.

I don't know if there has been a court case to show if the DirecTV re-sellers are in fact at arms length from the company or not. If they are at arms length then DirecTV has no civil liability or duty. The same is not the case of Joe's Telemarketing Services and Sam's Carpet Care. Something we are all too familiar with.

Even more interesting about Verizon is that in areas where they don't have fiber installed yet, they offer DirecTV as the TV part of their FIOS package. Something I was telemarketed. I was told they had a pre-existing relationship because I have Verizon as a phone company. Interesting as that would tend to make me think DirecTV would be responsible for its re-sellers. In any case when told they were calling a cell phone they did drop the number. (I'd ported the number from a VZ home line to another company cell.)

Verizon has problems, but recognizing that they are a regulated telephone company and what bad publicity could cost them is not one of their problems.

---

There are lawyers who make their living by filing such suits. They don't have to win either, simply take a payment to make the action go away. It is the discovery in the case of all the incriminating documents that makes the company want to settle and not risk seeing a jury or worse public disclosure and resulting loss of brand value.

Let me make it clear I'm only talking about administrative laws where there only is a fine for breaking them. Laws that call for jail time are another matter.

As to a more actual example of this simply consider the design of the Ford Pinto gas tank. It was alleged that Ford had a study done on the estimate of cost of payouts for the people who would die from the alleged defect verses the cost of fixing the design. Of course once the memo came out the cost to the brand reputation far exceeded any cost to fix.

Another less than hypothetical case involves defense contractors and spare parts. Frequently they will sell parts to a country on the prohibited list but engage the services of an intermediary to transship the goods. Very rarely will ICE or DOD catch on to this sham sale. So things like complete F-14 engines will end up being sold to North Korea. Or at least that is what my friend who worked for Customs alleged when he seized the engines for not having proper export license.

For a hypothetical, consider say DirecTV not making sure its independent sellers don't call people on the do not call list. DirecTV could insist that its independent sellers not place such calls, but if the maximum civil fine it might have to pay is less than the profit it earns if it doesn't, then its duty is to not prevent such calls. Its first duty is not to the Government to obey laws but to its shareholders to maximize profit. This is all because the sheet of paper that is a corporation is the product of legal ethics. I say this needs to change and the first duty be to the Government to be a responsible citizen. Otherwise fines are simply a cost of doing business.

And some people treat speeding and parking tickets as an expense too while some businesses do act ethically. When businesses are caught acting in the way Intel is alleged to have done they suffer the consequences, and chances are, if the fines remain, Intel's behavior will change (and other companies will be wary).

It isn't a question of a business acting ethically, but what code of ethics they subscribe to. Some subscribe to a lawyers code of ethics where fines are costs of business. Others subscribe to a moral code of ethics where good citizenship is valued more. I think the latter should be mandatory.

The caller hypothetical is interesting, Verizon has gone after callers that flout the FCC regulations against auto-diallers calling its cell phone customers, even though it conceivable that it makes money from its customers as a result and is not itself in breach of the regulations. Presumably Verizon believes this is good publicity and will attract customers.

AFAIK, strictly speaking it is not DirectTV's duty not to carry the calls, it is the telemarketer's not to place them, though DirectTV could perform a similar function to Verizon and start proceedings against the telemarketers.

I don't know if there has been a court case to show if the DirecTV re-sellers are in fact at arms length from the company or not. If they are at arms length then DirecTV has no civil liability or duty. The same is not the case of Joe's Telemarketing Services and Sam's Carpet Care. Something we are all too familiar with.

Even more interesting about Verizon is that in areas where they don't have fiber installed yet, they offer DirecTV as the TV part of their FIOS package. Something I was telemarketed. I was told they had a pre-existing relationship because I have Verizon as a phone company. Interesting as that would tend to make me think DirecTV would be responsible for its re-sellers. In any case when told they were calling a cell phone they did drop the number. (I'd ported the number from a VZ home line to another company cell.)

Verizon has problems, but recognizing that they are a regulated telephone company and what bad publicity could cost them is not one of their problems.

In the US we have a national No Call list that allows only charity/religious/ political cold calls if you are on the list. All other calls are prohibited and subject callers to fines and penalties for not following the rules.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope