Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 2747535" data-attributes="member: 9225">Theoretically, that sounds very comforting. Very theoretically.But man: I find the idea that the post-Enron world features strictly honest corporate dealings and spin-free public relationships to be extremely silly. Perhaps that is not what you are trying to say, but that would be the natural outcome in a world where Charles Ryan could *not* apply spin to something as vague as the quip, "best year ever." Legally, whether deceit is actionable depends on whether a person could reasonably rely on it in such a manner as to have caused injury.If Hasbro makes money for an investor but D&D isn't doing what that investor would call its "best ever" business (but another investor could argue was), is there any poential damage at all? Keep in mind that either way, people make money.If the investor wanted to complain because Chyarles Ryan told some gamers that D&D was doing great and he assumed (despite the fact that Ryan said nothing of the sort) it was because the game was doing great and not because of internal reorganization and liability reduction it actually turned out to be, wwould he be taken seriously?I'm sure the answer is "maybe," but "maybe" lots of things can happen that don't.With something like a licensor there's a different story, but (as some may have forgotten), those lecenses already belong to somebody else and will do so for the next long while.To maximize profit as safely as possible. Why is it that corporations always tout such basic precautions as examples of aproactive ethical position, but when the screw up, argue that they have no ethical duties outside of the law? Oh yeah -- it's because of that theoretically impossible spin.</blockquote>

Verification