Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21873)	12/2/1998 6:14:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>> Nor does the fact he is an officer of the corporation prove that his views are accurate or unbiased. <<< You miss my point. When senior officers of a corporation take actions based on their own policies, their corporations are usually liable for the results. So whether or not there were others within the company who disagreed with his actions, the company can (justifiably) have antitrust and other legal problems because of his actions. Everyone was aware of his actions, and if those actions were wrong, they had a duty to act. But these is no evidence of any such conflict. After all, one argument being presented for disallowing him here is that he only survived under his boss because he had Bill's protection. I have met a more than a few such people in that situation in my time. Typically they were doing something the CEO considered extremely useful, but where a distance was desired. In case they needed to become the fall guy later, for instance. So hypothetically, this could be the case here. I have no real information on that, I am just responding to the prior speculation. But whether you consider that he survived by imperial decree or whether he represented the corporate culture at large, or both, makes little matter as far as the law is concerned. Of course I'm no lawyer. Gerry, what do you think? Cheers, Chaz