[ntakasaki]

>Also, IIRC it's a requirement in the USA that public (and not-NFP) companies must always act to 'increase shareholder value', so the giving away of products or services could be considered a legal exposure. The obvious way to work around this concern is to label it marketing, which brings us back to where we came in.

There is no such requirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...

>EDIT: Sorry - misread your 404 question -- try these:

I read those and I don't find anything to justify OPs "$400m to fund ways to destroy GNU/Linux" or The Register's characterization of '$421m to fight Linux".

[Jedd]

Happy to be disabused on the shareholder value front. In AU we're obliged to consider shareholder interests, but with no constraint to prioritise short-term gains. No idea how far this has been tested by case law.