> Very sad when not even the massively rich will bother to do the right thing.
The issue is Google and Apple isn't owned by one massively rich person.
They are owned by tens of thousands of shareholders, many extremely wealthy but most small, including both individual investors but also pension funds and hedge funds, and the CEO & Board are legally obligated to act in their fiduciary interest.
> CEO & Board are legally obligated to act in their fiduciary interest.
Short or long term? Because shitting on democracy for money is potentially very damaging for brands in the long term, the market and especially future comptetitors will remember it.
Is it? I’d love to believe you, but I doubt it’s the case. Almost every public company that had something to lose would act the same way under these circumstances..
Something to lose right now, but potentially a lot to gain in post smartphone markets, where trust becomes even more important as technology merges more and more with the human body. Brand trust is going to be much more important than it is right now.
> Short or long term? Because shitting on democracy for money is potentially very damaging for brands in the long term, the market and especially future comptetitors will remember it.
In a perfect world this would be the case.
In the real world, their competitors won't exit these markets and will grow to fill the space left by them. This means that their competitors will grow which is probably more of a competitive threat to them in the long term.
i.e. if Google leaves China, the main impact to them would be the rise of TOS+ and the loss of their small market-share in China to Baidu. This would also be playing directly into the chinese government's hands who have a strong foothold on Baidu and Tencent.
I doubt that is true. The loss in the US versus all the money made in Russia and China? A drop in a sea of money. Also not everyone, especially outside the US, sees this as Democracy Vs. Bad regimes. Many see the US and China as equally bad so doing the US' bidding is no better than doing China's.
It is probably a bundle of all three, but "duty of good faith" fits the best here.
"The duty to act in good faith is an obligation not only to make decisions free from self-interest, but also free of any interest that diverts the control persons from acting in the best interest of the company."
I don't believe that for a second. Fiduciary duty prevents corporate officers from enriching themselves at the expense of the company. Fiduciary duty does not compel cooperation with dictators in the suppression of their people.
Can you provide a single example of a civil or criminal charge over something like this?
The issue is Google and Apple isn't owned by one massively rich person.
They are owned by tens of thousands of shareholders, many extremely wealthy but most small, including both individual investors but also pension funds and hedge funds, and the CEO & Board are legally obligated to act in their fiduciary interest.