A personal thread:
This page is part of larger review, please also see this Comcom For Inventors And Researchers ....
- The author believes that the protection against taking over, as it is simply provided legally for any ComCom business, since legally, no any one holder could ever hold it, for latter passing it over, in somewhat bigger price, to the richer, is essential,
- for neutralizing the pattern of first take over some object while collecting them for being well packed, so then you could pass it over for higher price to the richer, which is the main building block for creating bad distribution of wealth and
- especially for those who produce unique things who care for the product they produce (namely the power producers, such as researchers, artists, developers and activists), if they do so, not only (or not at all) for being reward financially or by fame, but because they believe in the goodness of the product they make.
This thread is also for all those who feel somewhat split in what they actually do for living and what they actually believe should be done.
This thread is personal for the author, since he was in the condition of refusing selling exclusivity upon his invention to Microsoft even as the price was stated around $200m.
The lesson was that in such prices only few of us would keep their dignity. Hence, who could you trust around you, if you work in a non ComCom company, and if that would be really successful?
What is your Interest and what is your Function, yours, as well as, those of all the other shareholders with whom you sleep? In ComCom these factors, your Interest and Function, can be taken regardless of the capitalist side-effect of taking it over only for then to hand it over to the richer, which, in its essence - is the wall street engine for producing the bad distribution of wealth on our earth.
Take over some object while collecting them for being well packed for handing over the new package to the richer as a building block of any development in our society is already proven such much centrality that it can not be beneficial the society as a whole, but only temporarily for the few serving as a hook for the remote to take it over. ( e.g. for a current hostile takeover attempt see the Microsoft and Yahoo case or any of those corrupted allies with whom your government and other big power players are to sleep.)
Due to the fact that in ComCom, there is always a confined and protected portion dedicated only to common shareholders who share the same number of shares (and as in the same ComCom: A common shareholder, which can only be either a ComCom or a person, can not be a private shareholder, which can only be either a company or a person), such taking it over to hand it over is completely neutralized as for any ComCom, since it could never be owned by a soul owner !!!
for more see also arguments#basic-comparison.
~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing adblockplus.