[felipe]

That is incorrect. Any company must act in the best interest of its shareholders. A publicly-traded company must maximize profit because that's the implicit nature of it: I buy stock in the market because I want a return on my investment. But if all shareholders of a given company (say, Mozilla) want to produce something for the good of the Internet and not make a profit, that's up to the shareholders.

A "non-profit" status simply gives the organization certain tax advantages because the state understands that the organization is acting on the best interest of the community, rather than its shareholders. But if a for-profit wants to do the same and not take advantage of said tax benefits, that's up to the shareholders to decide.

http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryf/g/fiduciary.htm

[AndyNemmity]

Corporations in the United States are legally obligated to maximize profit.

It's not an implicit nature, it's an explicit legal requirement.

[Symmetry]

That's a common belief, but quite false. See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company#Sig...

[wesleyd]

I believe the requirement to maximize profit is a requirement of the stock exchanges, not a requirement of being a company.

A company can be created for many different purposes.

[mikeash]

Can you provide a link to the law that says a corporation must maximize profit even when it's against the desires of its shareholders?

[TheCoelacanth]

Even if that were true, only the shareholders would have standing to sue them for failing to maximize profit. Clearly the only shareholder, the Mozilla Foundation, is not going to sue Mozilla Corporation for doing what the shareholder wants it to.