Slashdot Mirror

I note that there are sustainable banana farms and chiquita is supposedly one of these

http://business-ethics.com/201...

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3

As the years progress, an ever increasing majority of people are forced, through various agencies, into a state of poverty

That would be a very sad fact. Except that it isn't true in the United States. Or globally

With "friends" like DELL, Linux needs no enemies.

DELL's entire Linux effort for the last three years has been, IMO, one big gigantic FRAUD, with the intent to offer Ubuntu pre-installed on a few marginal boxes without significant customization available and for only one reason: so that Microsoft can avoid charges that it holds an illegal monopoly on the PC OEM desktop. Which it does.

The only question remaining is: "What are the advantages to DELL for allowing itself to be controlled as if it were a wholly owned subsidiary of another corporate, perhaps including Microsoft?"

Well, we have one answer to that question already. Just yesterday (7/23) we learned that DELL corporate has agreed to pay a $100 Million fine, and Dell personally has agreed to pay $4 Million. Two of his lieutenants have agreed to pay $4M and $3M each. And what did the SEC fine them for?

"They failed to disclose material information to investors and used fraudulent accounting to make it falsely appear that the company was consistently meeting Wall Street earnings targets."

If THAT is a crime then Microsoft is guilty as well. That's how they got to the top of the pile they are setting on today. What DELL actually did was take payoffs from Intel to not use AMD chips.

The SEC charged that Dell did not disclose to investors large "exclusivity payments" the company received from Intel Corporation to not use central processing units (CPUs) manufactured by Intel's main rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD).

"It was these payments rather than the company's management and operations that allowed Dell to meet its earnings targets," the SEC said. "After Intel cut these payments, Dell again misled investors by not disclosing the true reason behind the company's decreased profitability." ...
The SEC's complaint charged that the exclusivity payments made by Intel to Dell for not using CPUs made by AMD grew from 10 percent of Dell's operating income in fiscal year 2003 to 38 percent in fiscal year 2006. It peaked at 76 percent in the first quarter of FY 2007.

In fiscal year 2007, after Dell announced its intention to begin using CPUs made by AMD, the company and the individuals charged failed to disclose the basis for the company's sharp drop in its operating results. "In dollar terms, the reduction in Intel exclusivity payments was equivalent to 75 percent of the decline in Dell's operating income" the SEC said, and Messrs. Dell, Rollins, and Schneider told investors in an earnings call "that the sharp drop in the company's operating results was attributable to Dell pricing too aggressively in the face of slowing demand and to component costs declining less than expected."

Intel is the subject of antitrust lawsuits brought by the Federal Trade Commission and several states. In November 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion as part of a settlement in a private antitrust suit brought by AMD.

This reveals the injustice in the prosecution of corporate white collar crime: that Dell and the other people involved at both companies did not face CRIMINAL prosecution and didn't even have to admit guilt, even though there was enough evidence to force them to pay hundreds of millions in fines, which amounts to about 10% of their annual net profit during the last four quarters. Perhaps if Dell and the Intel management and major share holders had to spend some hard time in jail they wouldn't be so willing to flaunt the law for obscene profits. Such puny fines is like a hand-slap and defacto approval of their behavior.

DELL's behavior with Intel suggests that DELL is staying afloat, despite the poor quality of their machines and their high return rates, because Microsoft is paying them to NOT include Ubuntu on their desktops. It also raises questions about the other PC OEMs who won't free up their desktop for competition against Microsoft.

BusinessWeek Advocates Microsoft Piracy

the law, or laws, are mentthioned here -
http://www.business-ethics.com/resources/article_c orporatelaw.html

After doing quite a bit of research, I discovered two things.

First, there is no "U.S. Code" (I assume you mean federal law) governing corporate profits.

Second, virtually every state has a law that DOES require maximizing profits.

http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_resp onsibility
http://www.business-ethics.com/resources/article_c orporatelaw.html

Each of these links add information, but because the laws are specific to each state, I'm not going to look them up for you.

Regardless, the point is clear.

I keep seeing this "they can be sued" phrase pop up, and it's time to put a stake through its heart.
1. A company can be sued by a shareholder for just about anything they do. All it takes is profits being below a prediction (or some half-assed guesstimate), and someone will point to a particular corporate action as being the alledged cause. Most (90% or so in an average year) such suits are unsuccessful. Google can still be sued for working with the PRC's laws, if profits fall (even in some other division, as that could be called a PR backlash!), or for not investing agressively enough in China, if profits fall, or for not dropping this silly internet stuff and becoming a buggy-whip manufacturer, if profits fall.

2. Google is not a majority held public company. Lawsuits would be coming from minority stock holders. Minority stock holders have a steep hurdle to prove in any suit - that is they have to prove that they don't have the ulterior motive of trying to make their minority of votes (or their non-voting influence) steer the board of directors on an extra-legal issue.

3. US law simply doesn't say what you are misquoting it as saying. The law actually requires any corporation to abide by some pretty strict standards of ethics that often go against maximizing shareholder value, as in these examples:

First,
http://www.business-ethics.com/current.htm/
alwys has some examples of companies that have done the right thing, (in the opinion of the editors). You can look at what they did, and decide for yourself if they were under pressure of lawsuits or not.

Then there's the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is intended to have a positive impact on accountability, and is sometimes misconstrued to support your position. Most significantly (for this discussion), the Act imposes new responsibilities on CEOs and CFOs who could face criminal sanctions for false certification of financial reports. This was done by congress, because so FEW shareholder lawsuits against corporations were successful, and it was deemed necessary to give suing stockholders some "teeth" in a few cases of outright fraud, sufficient in itself to lead to criminal charges.

http://www.genusresources.com/site/content/publica tions/articles/tatelbaum_sarbanes.asp/

Will go to a prety good overview of Sarbanes-Oxley, and why it DOESNT leave companies wide open to any lawsuit some shareholder attempts.

You could also read up on The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It prohibits giving anything of value, directly or indirectly, to foreign government officials or foreign political candidates in order to obtain or retain business. It is strictly prohibited to make illegal payments to government officials of any country. Given the PRCs poor worldwide reputation on this, Google management could easily win just about any shareholder lawsuit, simply by saying bribery became a major issue.

(I give up. If I'm gonna keep biting on these legal related posts, I might as well change my sig to IANAL).

Corporations cannot exist without the permission of the people. The corporation's existence depends on a charter issued by a state government, a government elected by the people to act in the public interest. It follows inexorably that corporations are allowed to exist, first and foremost, to serve the public interest. - Ralph Estes, founder of The Stakeholder Alliance

The first corporations, given license to operate in the 1600s, were strictly limited in scope and power by their charters. Corporations were kept on a very short leash right through the American Revolution and the early years of the new republic. When a corporation exceeded its powers or ceased to serve the public interest, its charter was revoked and its very right to exist was nullified. - www.adbusters.org

If business people resist the notion of legal change, we can remind them that corporations exist only because laws allow them to exist. Without these laws, owners would be fully responsible for debts incurred and damages caused by their businesses. Because the public creates the law, corporations owe their existence as much to the public as they do to shareholders. They should have obligations to both. It simply makes no sense that society's most powerful citizens have no concern for the public good. - Excerpt from an article Published in the January/February 2002 issue of Business Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility Report

Frowning on an act would indicate some remedial conscience or morals, and as we see everyday corporations have NONE.

While you and I may believe that, evidently others do not.

We allow corporations to donate soft money, thereby influencing the political process, probably more so than the votes. We even allow them to give favors to candidates and politicians. They have property rights, can invent, can author creative works, can be exempted from laws, can buy other laws, can be sued, and can even sue for wrongs done to it! In the meantime, we also award companies for being "good corporate citizens"!

For something that only exists on paper, and that has no morals, ethics, conscience, spirit or life...corporations sure do have a lot of corporate rights. As if a they were "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...".