[spoonboy]

With great power comes responsibility. With a 59% interest, Larry and Sergey had absolute power over Google, and therefore absolute responsibility. Perhaps the move in China led some to believe that this is too much power. 52% enables the remaining shareholders to overrule Larry and Sergey's decisions -- in theory. In order for this to occur, virtually all the remaining shareholders would need to reach unanimous agreement against a decision made by Sergey and Larry -- highly improbable, but possible. Without absolute power, there is no absolute responsibility. Conveniently, this also aligns with a liquidation of billions of dollars.

[bioweek]

Nice idealistic thoughts, but the board of directors controls a company. Share holders can't do much except for vote for whomever they put on the proxy.

[spoonboy]

I think your comment reduces to "The board of directors controls a company, and shareholders have the power to vote for members of the board of directors". I agree. And before this event took place, 59% of shareholders votes were held by Sergey and Larry. This means that Sergey Brin and Larry Page held the majority of shareholder votes.

[jon_dahl]

Within limits, shareholders can elect the board of directors, right?

[bioweek]

In theory yes. But let's say 80% of company X shareholders wanted a large one time dividend payout but the executives of company X don't want to do it.

At the next board election they simply choose two candidates but both who agree with what the executives want.

[jfarmer]

Share sales like this are planned far in advance so there are no accusations of insider trading.

[zandorg]

Don't forget they have a lot of preferred (?) stock which means their voting power is a lot more than common stock.

[lucifer]

That almost sounds like a press release. Generally, "absolute power" is divested through the application of force, which begs the question of who/what forced the issue.