Where Your iPad and iPod Are Made

Farscry wrote:

But what about, for example, Intel? Their products are more broadly used than Apple's. Shouldn't we pressure them as much or more?

As I said above, activists often focus on one company in order to maximize the impact of a campaign. It's a common rhetorical defense to say, "You can't blame them for doing something that everyone does." To which the answer comes, "We blame everyone equally, but we're going to go after one company at a time."

Farscry wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Could be my misreading of some of the conversation; seemed like Apple was being pilloried but others were getting a pass on the issue.

I don't see it as giving a pass so much as singling out Apple as a representative of a class of employer due to Apple's size, profitability, leadership in the industry, branding and image.

But what about, for example, Intel? Their products are more broadly used than Apple's. Shouldn't we pressure them as much or more?

I think the comparison of Apple to Nike serves to shed light on the difference. Intel does not trade as heavily on its brand as an overpriced piece of walled garden hipster-apparel as Apple, which makes Apple more vulnerable to the complaints of its customers.

...Could I have written that less inflammatorily? Is what siri just asked me.

Thanks for the clarifying replies, guys. I'll have to mull it over more.

With Apple's extremely high profit margins, they're the people to go after first.

Malor wrote:

With Apple's extremely high profit margins, they're the people to go after first.

See now, that particular argument I don't agree with, because I don't see the relevancy of that. If you're going based on the customer-base particulars as noted above, I can see going after Apple. But if you want to take a financial approach, I'd think it would be more effective to go after the company that represents the most potential financial loss to Foxconn, as that will apply the most pressure to them in correcting their inhumane practices.

Malor wrote:
I counter your link with this one

Huh, that's pretty goddamn compelling. As far as I know, that's a new legal doctrine. I don't think it ever explicitly existed until that judge, just now, made it so.

Dunno if that precedent will stick, but I'd call your source much more authoritative than mine.

In Delaware anyway.

Part of the problem here is the story of stagnant wages in the US and the discrepancy between the ultra-rich and the working class. I don't remember where I saw the article, but I remember reading once that cheap electronics (along with cheap, bio-engineered food) were part of what was keeping Americans with a standard of living that was higher than their wage stagnation. In other words the profits are all going to the ultra-rich and masking the fact that we've been living in a deep wage depression for a long time. If Americans boycotted consumer electronics tomorrow they'd have more power than they think as they're the main consumers and also the main workers losing from the loss of manufacturing jobs and depressed wages.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Dog-piling here, but even if maximization of shareholder value weren't a real legal doctrine...

Sorry to keep diverting this here but I wanted to raise this point as well. People keep saying that corporations are required to make as much money as they can but that is not the same as "maximizing shareholder value". If that's the doctrine (is it actually called that?), that doesn't necessarily just mean "Make more money this quarter than last quarter no matter what." As we've seen, many companies will report a number of stupendous quarters, only to end up crashing down for some reason or another after the fact. I don't know anyone who would call that shareholder value maximized. The long-term approach often proves more worthwhile and as has been demonstrated in the linked article above, it's not an idea that Apple and others are averse to trying in order to bolster other elements of their business. Everyone can take different approaches and just beating last quarter isn't necessarily the only way to comply with the law. And even if it was, being required to maximize shareholder value is not an excuse for inhumane treatment of people in my opinion. Once again I say this because I appear to have to, this isn't just an Apple criticism, it's an anyone criticism.

It's actually called maximize profit, not 'shareholder value'. I had the same thoughts as you, that value does not equal profit, but that is the doctrine.

Interesting reading of the eBay/craigslist decision. If you get a chance to peruse it, I recommend it. It gives a clear and well-written overview of the history of the case and eBay's involvement with craigslist. (91 page PDF, mostly double-spaced.)

Notably, it actually has nothing to do with a failure to maximize either profits or shareholder value. What happened is that majority shareholders (Jim & Craig) wanted to marginalize eBay's influence as much as possible (eBay bought 28.4% of craigslist) because of disagreements and the perception that eBay was directly competing with them.

So they made some changes to corporate structure (including the Rights Plan prominently mentioned) to actively diminish eBay's stake in the company and to prevent eBay from electing their own member of the board. Their board change was allowed, their other actions were not.

Here's a series of blog posts on the topic of maximizing shareholder wealth:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/p...

LeapingGnome wrote:

It's actually called maximize profit, not 'shareholder value'. I had the same thoughts as you, that value does not equal profit, but that is the doctrine.

So let me ask you this. And please understand I'm not trying to be snarky but with the frankly insane and sociopathic tendencies Wall Street as a whole displays sometimes, I wonder how this isn't the case. Why don't we see either lawsuits or criminal charges made against any company that reports a loss or even a drop in quarterly profits? If they aren't maximizing profit, aren't they breaking the law then?

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

It's actually called maximize profit, not 'shareholder value'. I had the same thoughts as you, that value does not equal profit, but that is the doctrine.

So let me ask you this. And please understand I'm not trying to be snarky but with the frankly insane and sociopathic tendencies Wall Street as a whole displays sometimes, I wonder how this isn't the case. Why don't we see either lawsuits or criminal charges made against any company that reports a loss or even a drop in quarterly profits? If they aren't maximizing profit, aren't they breaking the law then?

Maximizing and making a profit aren't the same thing. Maybe taking that loss was actually the maximum they could do.

It's all stupid, how do you prove what the maximum is?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Malor wrote:
I counter your link with this one

Huh, that's pretty goddamn compelling. As far as I know, that's a new legal doctrine. I don't think it ever explicitly existed until that judge, just now, made it so.

Dunno if that precedent will stick, but I'd call your source much more authoritative than mine.

In Delaware anyway.

Right. And Apple is incorporated in California. It's worth noting that there's about 150 years worth of caselaw covering corporate governance. You can spend days and weeks poring over this stuff working out how the law applies in a given set of circumstances. And when you're finished, if the existing interpretation of the law doesn't help you, you just suggest the court make a whole new one that does. Sometimes the court refuses, and sometimes it's happy to play along.

Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Malor wrote:
I counter your link with this one

Huh, that's pretty goddamn compelling. As far as I know, that's a new legal doctrine. I don't think it ever explicitly existed until that judge, just now, made it so.

Dunno if that precedent will stick, but I'd call your source much more authoritative than mine.

In Delaware anyway.

Right. And Apple is incorporated in California. It's worth noting that there's about 150 years worth of caselaw covering corporate governance. You can spend days and weeks poring over this stuff working out how the law applies in a given set of circumstances. And when you're finished, if the existing interpretation of the law doesn't help you, you just suggest the court make a whole new one that does.

And the Delaware case isn't actually about failure to maximize profit or shareholder value.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

It's actually called maximize profit, not 'shareholder value'. I had the same thoughts as you, that value does not equal profit, but that is the doctrine.

So let me ask you this. And please understand I'm not trying to be snarky but with the frankly insane and sociopathic tendencies Wall Street as a whole displays sometimes, I wonder how this isn't the case. Why don't we see either lawsuits or criminal charges made against any company that reports a loss or even a drop in quarterly profits? If they aren't maximizing profit, aren't they breaking the law then?

For one, it's not a criminal law.

As for whether we actually see law suits every time a stock drops, I refer you to this database of shareholder class actions.