But without infringing any patents, hopefully.
When Elmo does something, it’s always new and radical and groundbreaking, even if copies ancient prior art. None of that counts. Nothing counts until Elmo does it.
Gift link. The Tesla shareholder suit on Musk’s excessive pay has succeeded.
From the article:
Mr. Musk also testified during the trial, suggesting that his impact on the car industry justified his pay. “Tesla has had an immense effect on the world,” he said. “Not just that Tesla is making electric vehicles — we have been really the main reason why the rest of the car industry has moved toward sustainable, electric vehicles.”
Yet more evidence that Elmo is not that bright, outside of perhaps narrow technological pursuits. Elmo is claiming that he should receive an obscenely inflated compensation package because he single-handedly inspired other carmakers to start making EVs. How the fuck does this contribute to Tesla shareholder value? And why the fuck would any Tesla shareholder care, except perhaps to perceive it as a negative because Elmo is essentially claiming that he personally created competition against Tesla.
(And I’m glad he did. My next car is very likely to be an EV, but it sure as hell is not going to be a Tesla.)
Maybe they misread your posts as “erection reform”
Here’s the CNN link for the Musk compensation decision.
I was going to write something about it actually being Elmo claiming credit for inventing things that he actually bought, not invented. But this from the linked tweet
Sums it up much better than I could.
The most corporate-friendly doesn’t necessarily mean most CEO friendly.
He got the compensation he did because he increased the market cap of Tesla by a factor of ten in three years. That was the deal. Almost 80% of the board and shareholders voted for it.
The commentary at the time was Elon had made a stupid deal he could never meet, and was crazy to do it. Then he did it, and suddenly the dealmis not fair to Tesla. Ridiculous verdict.
Then he should have said so. I was commenting specifically on the quoted testimony he gave, which makes absolutely no sense as a justification for the pay package. It was simply egotistical self-aggrandizement.
Could be. I never saw that. I have seen commentary on his pay and the lawsuit in the business press.
Do you think Musk’s contract should be voided? And he should have to give up his back pay? Because some judge not party to the original deal and with no skin in the game thinks it was excessive after the fact?
Increasing the market cap of a company doesn’t involve anything other than convincing wall street it’s worth more. Sometimes you do that via good business leadership and management. Sometimes you do that by blowing a bunch of hype smoke up investor asses. Decide for yourself which strategy Musk pursued.
Oh, c’mon. Tesla was sued by its own shareholders, alleging that the Board and Musk had knowingly misrepresented the difficulty of the targets. That’s completely litigable, and it’s nonsense to just blame the judge for this.
“During a full trial on the merits, Tesla shareholders alleged that they had proved that a number of the plan’s key milestones that Musk and the board described in their disclosures as very difficult to achieve were, in fact, expected based on Tesla’s confidential projections shared with banks and rating agencies; that the proxy wrongly characterized the compensation committee and the board as ‘independent’ when they were not; and that the proxy misrepresented the genesis of the plan, the specifics having originated with Musk himself rather than the compensation committee of the board,” it read.
Given up on reading any part of a cite have you?
Shareholders had sued, arguing that Mr. Musk’s compensation — which helped make him the world’s richest person — was excessive.
Maybe this will help,
Shareholders had sued
Yes, I know shareholders have sued. So what? What if it was an activist shareholder who bought a bunch of shares, used that to sue Musk hoping to win a 54B payday for Tesla then dump the now higher valued stock? It if forces Musk to liquidate his holdings and lose power, great. Because Musk bad.
Shit like that goes on all the time, and it’s up to the courts to smack it down when it’s frivolous.
To be fair, those are both skills useful in business.
And to not smack it down when it is not frivolous.
Or is your position that no judge anywhere who is not “party to the original deal and with no skin in the game” is able to make any decisions at all?
I find the idea that judges should have skin in the game troubling.
It helps, of course, that Wall Street really, really wants to be convinced.