Slashdot Mirror
Bible.com Investor Sues Company For Lack Of Profit
The board of Bible.com claims that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than to make money on the domain name, but an angry shareholder disagrees. From the article: "James Solakian filed the lawsuit in Delaware's Chancery Court against the board of Bible.com for breaching their duty by refusing to sell the site or run the company in a profitable way. The lawsuit cites a valuation done by a potential purchaser that estimated bible.com could be worth more than dictionary.com, which recently sold for more than $100 million."
If the company is unprofitable, then buy up a majority of the stock and run it how you want - or sell your own stock and go do something else.
No one is forcing investors to own this company.
Learn about Photography Basics.
So, there is no prophet?
FTFY.
All you need to make a camel pass through a needle's eye is to grind it very finely.
I don't think they teach "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" to aspiring MBAs these days.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Every once in a while I'll google around for a quote that I know is Biblical, simply because I want the chapter and verse.
bible.cc is one site that comes up in Google when you do that. It has multiple translations and languages even!
Bible.cc has bookstore links and just a few small ads. Bible.com has an interstitial, and comes off as "megachurch Christian" rather than Bible-study oriented.
That they failed to capitalize seems likely; but if every board that failed to capitalize were liable, it'd be a different world, or would it? I've held a number of stocks where there were shareholder class actions, and have always marveled that anybody would want to essentially sue themselves. The only winners are the lawyers. Suits like this are usually just a sign that the company is circling the drain.
There's really "nothing to see here. Move on".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor his website.
Maybe if it was set up with little or no regard for profit (like Wikipedia,) it would have had God's blessing and succeeded?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
1 Corinthians 6:7
Lawsuits among Christians are a no-no in the Bible.
The Court finds the defendant Jesus Christ guilty of not leveraging your power to make us all rich!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
Chick-fil-a does it - they're not open on Sundays, treat their workers well, environmental stewardship, and other things that are branded "liberal" by the Fox News crowd and yet, they make boat loads of money doing things that others would think would eat into profitability and make one uncompetitive.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Why would anyone agree to buy the domain name for 100 million dollars when there is no clear way of monetizing it or making it a profitable venture? It's so 1997 to think that the normal rules of business do not apply to the internet, because it's a magical place where there is profit for all and every 50$ investment yields a billion dollar return.
Legally companies do have responsibilities to their shareholders. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Shareholders are entirely within their legal rights to sue their companies for failing to make decisions which are likely to make the company profitable.
Maybe you think that on some sort of social level that isn't how it should work. To a lot of uneducated people, investing is paramount to gambling: you invest, you accept the risk, and then you win or lose, and that's it. But in the real world, investing is very different, and plenty of legal responsibility is heaped upon the board of directors to act in the investor's best financial interest.
...your lack of profit disturbing.
It's not "liberal" when an individual or corporation decides to do these things. It's considered "liberal" when the government forces individuals to do these things, or extracts money from individuals and corporations in order to do these things themselves.
Many conservatives participate in a lot of charity, I'm not sure why you consider those two things to be mutually exclusive.
What next- bible.biz?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
... as brought to you by Supply Side Jesus?
Check your premises.
Admit it: if they dispensed ketchup into paper cups (how would that go over in the drive-thru, BTW), you would complain that they're cutting down old-growth forests. The fact that you are spewing your pedantic drivel over the internet tells me that you probably make compromises in your own life in order to participate in civilization.
I haven't seen a styrofoam cup there, but then I've never bought any hot beverage.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Obviously, you did not get your BBA / MBA from a strict Christian University, and there are quite a few of those around. They teach that its not a sin to make money, what you focus on is conducting your business in a fair and ethical way, and don't engage in practices that hinder your faith.
In this summery, however, the problem is that the investor is 1) ignorant of what he is investing in, 2) obviously doesn't share their views, and, probably most importantly, 3) is trying to find a way to make money off of something that places like http://www.biblegateway.com/ http://www.e-sword.net/ and others, give away for free. I mean, let's face it, Bible.com isn't exactly a Microsoft, no matter how badly the investor wants to think it is.
Yeah, "it can be" - except it ISN'T. If the laws were completely different, murder *could* be legal, too. But it's not, because we don't live in alternate-reality-bizarro-world where up is down, left is right, and the ASPCA and the ACLU and a host of other non-secular charities aren't eligible for tax-deductible status, but religious organizations are.
Publication 78 from the IRS is pretty clear on what criteria qualify donations as tax-deductible, and there is even a search utility so you can make sure your organization of choice is a tax-deductible one.
The list is FAR longer and FAR more comprehensive than "churches", and in fact it absolutely does include the ASPCA, the ACLU, and battered women's shelters of any kind (since one of the qualifying organizations is "A community chest, corporation, trust, fund, or foundation, organized or created in the United States or its possessions, or under the laws of the United States, any state, the District of Columbia or any possession of the United States, and organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." Hard to argue that battered womens' shelter wouldn't qualify as being "operated exclusively for charitable" purposes - I don't think there's a womens' shelter out there that would attempt to monetize their clientele, and if they did, I'd submit that it would be absolutely monstrous and inhuman to grant them any sort of 'favored' status under tax law.
So yeah, if the government allowed you a deduction only for "charity to religious organizations," then you'd have a point. Since the deduction is allowed for "charity" - full stop, the point is ridiculous.
Only semantically. There is worlds of difference in the practice & principles implied by those two statements. One describes government encouraging voluntary charity by private individuals, which implies the free exercise of conscience by citizens. The other describes forced 'charity' by the government, put in place by a group of people who will use their fellow citizens to support goals and organizations they might not agree with or value at all. I'd say that the distinction is pretty clear, and hugely important.