SEC: Microsoft Not Forced To Explain Position On Net Neutrality

from the shareholder-democracy dept

Wed, Oct 4th 2006 8:28am — Joseph Weisenthal

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

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2006 @ 8:34am

Why would a company that has a vested interest in a political issue want to not be involved?

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 thread ]
Guard, 4 Oct 2006 @ 10:15am

Let's have several oblivious ISPs no longer allow access to Microsoft.com (or those therein related). And then ask microsoft for their stance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 4 Oct 2006 @ 10:48am

Re:
Their stance would be to sue all the ISPs in question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
glitch, 4 Oct 2006 @ 10:50am

net neutrality will soon be moot point
What scares me more is the UN wresting control of ICAN.. A foot in the door for UN control of the 'net ???? Why don't they go out and "create" their own 'net ??? Although that would be a massive financial undertaking for any one to take on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mika, 4 Oct 2006 @ 11:52am

RE:
The internet should not be ruled by anyone nation. I beleive the UN should be the only governing body allow to pass laws over the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2006 @ 12:03pm

I dont think ANYONE should be allowed to govern the internet, the internet does not belong to any country or agency, at least its content. Therefore countries can go as far as what is hosted inside the net.

What I can tolerate is the regulation of child porn and the like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2006 @ 12:05pm

***correction to my precious post: "Countries con go as far as regulating what is hosted inside their territory"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonathan, 4 Oct 2006 @ 12:17pm

Re: Re:
And they would win...and the ISP's would have to come up with whatever sum of cash microsoft can claim they lost for each hour their domain was banned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2006 @ 5:44pm

ICANN should stay as it is. There isn't too much government interference (except for .xxx) and with any luck there won't be any more.

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 thread ]
ack, 4 Oct 2006 @ 6:27pm

Re: RE:
The UN dosen't care about the Net anymore than they care for the brutal killings going on in some of the Country's right now. Don't hold you breath waiting for them to help out. They have been unreliable for years now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ack II, 4 Oct 2006 @ 6:36pm

Don't let any Country have a say so in this. Once you give them a inch they will take a mile. Before you know it, no one will use the net unless they have too. Who wants big brother breathing down their neck? We will loose our entertainment, our freedom to roam, and our freedom of speech. We will loose our vast information highway. Who wants to keep you informed if the info you put on the net is biased, and controlled. The only ones that will use the Net then will be the ones doing the controlling, and the idiots, and those that have a "don't care" attitude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obvious Man, 5 Oct 2006 @ 9:48am

Here's a few questions: #1: I hope Microsoft DOES care, but doesn't want to share what it's doing about Net Neutrality...

#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 thread ]