>So, not staking out a bridge from which he can troll license fees while hindering progress, he keeps the playing field level and maximizes advances (innovation) while allowing the consumer to enjoy the fruits of competition. To me, that is an excellent business plan.
His employees, who are facing losing their jobs, may disagree. I bet if you ask each one, secretly out of the eyes of CBS's camera, they would have preferred he gotten the patent. His business plans works great for the consumer, but how about the people who depend on his decisions for a job? I bet he probably has a comfortable nest egg, while his employees may not fare so well.
>No doubt, the current ethic would have recommended that he take the $300 million in insurance and retire, cutting off his employees at the knees and letting them vend for themselves. Sorta Enron like.
>
I respect him for that, but couldn't the entire problem have been avoided if he had gotten the patent? And what is his financial position? Somehow, I doubt we will see him worrying about his next mortgage payment.
>Ya, Ken Lay is really a 'good businessman' isn't he? He is such a role model for the current crop of corp execs...
>
No, Ken Lay was a poor business man, and apparently a dishonest one. Being a good business man and an honest one are not mutually exclusive.
