Morality of screwing Microsoft

Who cares about morality - the stock will go up when it the company is split. That’s all that matters.

Bill will be okay.

The 3 corps will have overlapping boards and work in concert.

Nothing has changed, except that now they will be able to be manipulative than ever, and each baby bill will be able to buy smaller competitors in each area.

I say bust him for stealing the “windows” concept from Apple…

DSYoung, I still think the behavior is not ommoral. Microsoft has a choice whether to provide the rebate, and they do so with knowledge of the California law. It is their responsibility to know (or guess) how many customers will take advantage of the law. If anything, the company is behaving immorally by (correctly) assuming that a large portion of people who take advantage of the rebate do so without knowledge of their right to walk away from the subsequent purchase commitment. (Let’s face it: if they continue to offer it, that’s exactly what they are doing.)

The situation changes (for me, anyway), if the law changes in the middle of the purchase contract. If I’m three months into my commitment and the law changes, I would feel morally obliged to complete the contract under the terms to which I originally agreed. But if the company and I both know the rules when we enter into the contract, there is nothing morally objectionable when I actually use one of the rules.


Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

manhattan, I have to agree with DSYoung on morality versus legality. You can’t base your moral choices on what is legal. Using that slippery logic, many have rationalized the exploitation of slaves and other immoral acts throughout history. While I don’t mean to equate this type of rebate scam with slavery, I would simply refuse the rebate.