[mistercow]

>It's actually the law for Apple to make as much money as possible given any legal and ethical way it can.

A corporation has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of its shareholders, but I think this fact is greatly overstated. Since "best interest" is such a flexible and uncertain concept, most cases where people bring this up are not really the "legal imperative to be assholes" that they believe. By suing Samsung over this, Apple has risked triggering an all out patent war between the major players in the mobile market which could end up costing them tremendous legal fees and may wound them grievously if any of the ensuing lawsuits were not decided in their favor. Suppose Apple had not taken to Samsung to court over these patents. Does it really seem plausible to you that the shareholders would sue Apple's board of directors, and win?

But assuming that corporations are legally expected to perfectly predict the future and optimize for their shareholders' interests, a boycott would still be warranted. If we let companies see that acting like a bully will hurt their bottom line, then those companies will be legally compelled to act in the interest of their shareholders by not being bullies.

[gregsq]

Speaking from the UK perspective, the false idea that maximisation of profit is inferred in any way by corporation law is sometimes more easily seen when examining the case of 'Private' companies. These are companies still limited by shares, or stocks, but where the director, the single shareholder, and the employee are all one and the same person.

It can be a valuable example because it is easy to show how a director making decisions that maximise benefits to the shareholder are not necessarily in the best interests of the company entity, and in fact are viewed with suspicion by regulating bodies.

The best interests of the company include many other considerations besides shareholder return. One of those has to be long term viability for a long lived corporate entity. Eroding goodwill and reputational or brand damage go directly to the heart of the concept of director responsibility.