SEC: Microsoft Not Forced To Explain Position On Net Neutrality
from the shareholder-democracy dept
This summer we noted that a mutual fund, whose managers opposed net neutrality regulations, had bought shares in Microsoft for the express purpose of forcing the company to explain its position on the issue (Microsoft stood in favor of the regulations). It was just one of the many silly PR stunts associated with the net neutrality debate. Microsoft opposed the fund's demands, and now the SEC has ruled in the company's favor, saying it has no obligation to address the issue in the company's proxy. This fund wants to appeal the ruling, but in all likelihood the ruling will stand, as it should. If public companies had to take time to address an issue every time a politically motivated firm buys a token number of shares in the company, it could become a major burden. Then again, maybe companies would get less involved in policy issues, which might be a good thing.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My guess, Microsoft doesn't really care one way or the other. Truth is, Google probably doesn't have a dog in that hunt either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
net neutrality will soon be moot point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I can tolerate is the regulation of child porn and the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting it in control of the UN just means other opportunistic countries will then have control of it. I'd rather have one opportunitistic country then a handful in control of my internet any day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#2: If Google really doesn't care also, then why are they buying up damn near all the dark fiber-optic lines they can find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]