1 edit
-Removed-To me a large corporation is like a mini government. Such centralist control tends to snuff out innovation and independent thinking. I think you will find that in the corporate world, free thinkers are frowned upon. Just like in a large centralized government, in the corporate world being PC is more important than being right. Looking at the economy, it is not hard to see that both the corporate world and the government shun prosperity which I think they view as a threat of sorts.
Those in the corporate world, like those in the federal government, have already made their fortunes. Making money is no longer a goal. Instead, it comes down to control so that they don't lose their fortune and disallowing others to bypass them, thus making their power and influence wane.
It is all about the human lust for power and control. Mankind has been fighting it since the dawn of time. Is there a cure? I think not.
1 edit
The measure of success for any entrepreneur is to build a new company from scratch, establish a position for it in the market and then sell it on to professional managers. It is generally accepted that entrepreneurs do not typically make good managers of established or growing firms. The entrepreneur needs to sell in order to achieve their own goal of getting wealthy. However, this dynamic also ensures that, while in theory market leaders are always vulnerable to threats from new and more nimble rivals, helping to prevent the market seizing up, in many cases the market leader will notice its new rivals, tolerate them for a while, then buy them. Often the new competitor then disappears or it is otherwise altered to remove threats to the market leader. In the absence of specific regulatory interventions, we are going to be eaten up by monopolies and in the joined up internet world that is happening.
-Removed-I am not familiar with the Pfizer v. Astra controversy and only externally familiar with the Apple v. Samsung battle.
It seems to me that this greatly resembles the Apple vs. PC struggle of the early '90s, when Windows and Windows 95 tried to compete with Apple's innovative GUI operating system. Of course, at the time both Atari and Commodore had GUI systems that in some ways were superior to either the Apple or PC offerings. Windows until Windows XP wasn't even a true OS but a piggyback add on to MS DOS.
In like manner, I find it hard to fault Samsung for imitating the OS of the I phone, without simply reverse engineering it. From what I've read, the whole series of Android OSs evolved out of various versions of open code Linux, not the Apple OS. Anyone is free to disagree, but I find the Android systems better on both their tablets and phones, when compared to the Apple products, and recent criticisms of Apple are that innovation died with Steve Jobs.
Whatever the law suits may say, often the verdicts are based on what companies have paid in campaign contributions to various powerful lawmakers. Gates and Microsoft were pikers when they were found guilty of charges in the late '90s. They simply didn't pay the protection racket of the political class.
Originally posted by finneganI've heard the theory expounded by governmental control advocates, but see little evidence of this theory in practice.
The measure of success for any entrepreneur is to build a new company from scratch, establish a position for it in the market and then sell it on to professional managers. It is generally accepted that entrepreneurs do not typically make good managers of established or growing firms. The entrepreneur needs to sell in order to achieve their own goal of getti ...[text shortened]... we are going to be eaten up by monopolies and in the joined up internet world that is happening.
-Removed-It is a surprise to me that Pfizer is an American company. Not arguing that, but when Pfizer closed up its operations at Ann Arbor, MI, the companies CEO was British, and was returning to the UK. I think Pfizer is probably better categorized as a multinational.
In any case, it appears that Astra is putting up a credible fight against the takeover.
Originally posted by normbenignFear not Norm. Our Cameron is a very wealthy Tory git who will cheerfully wave through the sale of Britain's industrial and research base to an American led bunch of corporate thieves because it will make fat bonuses in the city of London, where his own family wealth lies (though naturally it is held in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes). The "march of the makers" he calls it - a bit like the reputed march of lemmings off a cliff into the sea.
US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world, so it is advantageous that their income stream be counted on foreign soil where the corporate rate isn't so punitive, or can be avoided altogether.