[Karunamon]

While I'm not sure I agree with your overall thesis (a company is made up of people at the end of the day), I do feel there is a point to be made here: Is the IBM of today the IBM of 20-40 years ago? A person is not controlled by different beings at different times of their life, a corporation is.

The legal brief, from a quick skim, appear to reference actions taken in the 70's and 80's.

Is the IBM of today the same one that existed in the 70's? The same people running it and making the same decisions?

If the answer is no, I'm not sure what significance this lawsuit holds, other than a symbolic "sticking it to the corporations" one. The only people being punished in such a case are those that had nothing to do with the original wrongdoing.

[SixSigma]

It still has the assets gained and the shareholders bear the risk of the business.

You'll be telling me next countries should stop paying war reparations because none of the combatants are still alive!

[URSpider94]

So, by your logic, if evidence surfaces after 30 years that solves an open murder case, we shouldn't prosecute the suspect, because they've changed a lot in that time?

[sroerick]

Or perhaps "All their cells have recycled over the last 7 years, so we can't prosecute."

[Karunamon]

Same person, though. Without going all philosophical about it though, here's an example: let's assume there are two companies, one a sole proprietorship, the other a corporation with 10 employees.

Both companies commit the same crime, the nature of which is unimportant.

It takes 30+ years for the case to enter the judicial system. In the meantime, the guy running the first company is still there, while the 10 employees of the second company are no longer the original 10.

Is it as fair to prosecute the second one as the first one? I don't think so, because at that point you're assigning way too much value to the legal fiction of personhood. A company is made up of people, and I really don't see how there is any justice to be served in prosecuting people who didn't actually commit any crimes just because they work at a place with a certain name.

[dalke]

Corporations exist to move liability from the owners to the company, not as a way to escape liability, which seems to be your proposal. Your argument seems to be that so long as people pass through a company quickly enough, there's no long-term liability for the company?

The company must maintain the liabilities of its history. If a refining company dumped waste directly into the ground, then 30+ years later it should still be held responsible for clean up, even if all of the people involved have retired. Otherwise, who is responsible for the cleanup?

Or, suppose that we find that Disney had illegally acquired the copyrights and trademarks to Mickey Mouse from Person X. All of the people involved are long dead, though the inheritors of the estate of Person X were successful in their lawsuit. Under your view, it seems that the inheritors could not sue Disney because none of the people now at Disney committed the original crime. That's an absurd conclusion.

[megablast]

There are a number of reasons for prosecuting, from punishing wrong doing to discourage overs, to getting compensation, to punishing the people who have done wrong.

You seem to think only one of these exists.

[URSpider94]

When you prosecute a company, you're penalizing the owners, not the employees. If there's a judgment against IBM, it's likely that nobody who works there will lose their job. Certainly, nobody will go to jail. Instead, the company will make less money, which may push the stock price down.

Most significantly, going forward, corporations will weigh the potential costs of litigation against the profit of doing business with regimes committing crimes against humanity. Which is what we want.

[foxhill]

a person is a single conscious entity. there is no change in 30 years.

a company will have almost entirely changed in 30 years - the son should not have to pay for the sins of the father, etc.

[rodgerd]

Then they shouldn't retain the patents, copyrights, cash, or any of the other assets. If corporations want the benefits of immortality, they need to accept the drawbacks.

[URSpider94]

Nonsense.

If the company signed a 100-year lease 30 years ago, should it no longer have to honor it?

If the company agreed to pay pensions to its employees 30 years ago, should it get to stop paying them?

If the CEO of Chrysler retires, can I stop paying the loan on my car?

The point of a corporation is that it's a durable entity (NOT a person, but a person is a good analogy much of the time). That's why corporations can own property, be insured, get loans from the bank, and otherwise enter into contracts -- because there will be an entity there tomorrow that will be accountable for those transactions -- regardless of who owns its shares or who is on the payroll.