Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bible.com Investor Sues Company For Lack Of Profit

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the isn't-it-ironic dept.

Books 181

The board of Bible.com claims that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than to make money on the domain name, but an angry shareholder disagrees. From the article: "James Solakian filed the lawsuit in Delaware's Chancery Court against the board of Bible.com for breaching their duty by refusing to sell the site or run the company in a profitable way. The lawsuit cites a valuation done by a potential purchaser that estimated bible.com could be worth more than dictionary.com, which recently sold for more than $100 million."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

this is retarded (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33986556)

idle.slashdot.org, not the lawsuit.

Commenting on it even more so (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987480)

So you don't like idle, so then you read idle articles, and then comment, and perform a screen captcha test? Just to say you don't like something you could ignore?

There's an easy fix for this (3, Insightful)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986626)

If the company is unprofitable, then buy up a majority of the stock and run it how you want - or sell your own stock and go do something else.

No one is forcing investors to own this company.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33986700)

I can see it from the investor's point of view however. A company has a responsibility to the shareholders and if they are passing up a profitable business opportunity, then they deserve to get sued and lose.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (2, Interesting)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986848)

No they don't. They have a responsibility to do whatever they want to do. If they say shareholders be damned, then shareholders be damned.

You can't invest in an "environmentally friendly" company and sue them because they aren't being as profitable as you think they could be. They might have other priorities.

As a matter of fact, you can (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33986968)

Legally companies do have responsibilities to their shareholders. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Shareholders are entirely within their legal rights to sue their companies for failing to make decisions which are likely to make the company profitable.

Maybe you think that on some sort of social level that isn't how it should work. To a lot of uneducated people, investing is paramount to gambling: you invest, you accept the risk, and then you win or lose, and that's it. But in the real world, investing is very different, and plenty of legal responsibility is heaped upon the board of directors to act in the investor's best financial interest.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (0)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987348)

Anon delivars. Mod up please! This is doubly true for corporations that are publicly traded. As a company, If the company isn't returning as much profit as possible THAT QUARTER, you aren't fulfilling the obligations to the shareholder.

Shareholder lawsuits for this reason are very common. In fact, there's a class action lawsuit open against Bank of America for acquiring Merrill Lynch. Perfect example to compare to this story.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987632)

"If the company isn't returning as much profit as possible THAT QUARTER, you aren't fulfilling the obligations to the shareholder."

This is just anti-capitalist babble bullshit. There is absolutely zero such obligation, publicly traded or not. Boards have huge latitude in determining strategy for profits, timeframe for profits, scope of operations, and ethical stance. The board of P&G could say the following tomorrow morning: "Due to concerns about short-sightedness in business decisions and unethical treatment of animals, P&G will no longer give any quarterly guidance, will not attempt to make any arbitrary time periods appear profitable, will seek to realize actual profits over 3-5 year periods rather than 1 year periods, and will immediately cease to house, use, or cause to be used any animals in the testing of its products."

P&G shareholders could either vote for a board change, or suck on it. Of course they could try to sue. They could also try to sue the board for not wearing paisley neckties every Tuesday. Both cases would have as much merit.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987802)

and this lawsuit should be thrown out.

There was not an attempt at deception (compare to Enron). M-L had a lot of bad assets, but also had several HUGE ones worth buying that Bear-Stearns and Lehman Bros didn't have. In the myopic view of a shareholder, it sucked at the time. In the greater scheme of things, even though it was a shotgun marriage, it probably also avoided BAC from going down, too. BAC has more than enough problems with Countrywide.

When BAC figures out how to externalize (get the government to pay for) all the bad MBSs, CDAs, and associated instruments it still has, not only from ML, it's going to work out well in the long run for BAC.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (3, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988374)

The Board is required to fulfill the company's purpose as laid out in the corporate charter. That may or may not be maximizing profits.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987504)

And where exactly is the money going to come from if they do win? It comes out of the company funds which the shareholders own anyway, less lawyer's fees, and the shareholders also have lawyers fees. It is basically the same as suing yourself, and it seems that the only people who can possibly win here are the lawyers.

If the shareholders don't like what's going on, call an EGM and sack the directors.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988360)

Unless the award requires that they sell their assets in order to pay, at which point the investor gets exactly what he wanted.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988496)

It is not the same as suing yourself. What you want is your investment back. If they have to liquidate the company to do that, so be it.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987608)

Not quite. Legally, the company is required to act in accordance with its charter. Typically, these say something like 'make as much money as possible by engaging in business X'. Sometimes they don't mention money at all, or in the case of companies that do the triple bottom line thing mention money as one of the objectives. When you invest in a company, you are saying that you agree with the company's mission.

Simply not doing the thing that makes the most profit for the shareholders is never grounds for a successful lawsuit. If it were, then every company performing below the top few percent of the stock market would be legally obliged to liquidate its assets and invest them all in one of the top companies.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987724)

Damn straight. That's what I was saying.

Yes, they are legally bound to pay their shareholders in accordance with the agreed upon terms. But the agreed terms are never "make as much money as possible"

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988004)

Never? Really? I thought the goal of most corporations was to make as much money as possible. Or are you claiming to have read every single corporation charter that is in existence and zero of them stated the goal was to make as much money as possible?

Or are you possible confusing the term "never" with "not always"?

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987612)

Totally awesome. I sue a company I own a significant amount of shares in because it's not making money, or at least to my satisfaction. Say I win. Company now owns me $$$. Well, if the company is not making $$$, and the company now probably also has to not only pay its attorneys fees but mine as well (but if the company doesn't have much $$$...), tell me how this isn't a pyhrric victory?

I agree. Sell the stock. If you're an investor, you do not have the right to a profit, or even some degree of your money back.

Suck it up, Mr. Venture Capitalist. You made a bad bet.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988434)

The mistake you are making is that you think that investors care about the companies they invest in. They do not - they care about their investments. If you have invested in a company and you win a lawsuit because they didn't perform their duty, all you really want to do is get as much of your money back as you can. If they have to liquidate the company to do it, that is not your concern.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987912)

Oh, yawn. Repeating this babble doesn't make it true. Boards can absolutely make ethical determinations that reduce or destroy profits, and are free to choose any reasonable timeframe for profitability. Probably up to a decade without any question being raised. Furthermore, the corporate governance docs can prioritize the board's responsibilities however it wants. You can create a company whose board is bound to make as much money as possible by any means short of outright crime. But that is not the default expectation of a company - in fact the default expectation is neutral on the point of such priorities, and as a result they are left to the board. The board of Proctor & Gamble could say tomorrow morning: "Due to concerns about short-sighted business decisions and our treatment of animals, P&G will no longer give quarterly guidance, will seek profits over 3-5 year periods rather than 1 year periods, and will immediately cease to house, use, or cause to be used any animals in the testing of its products."

Shareholders could either vote the board out, or suck on it. Of course they could try to sue, but they can try to sue about anything. They would have no case whatsoever. The board may indeed get replaced, but it would be by vote rather than by judgment.

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33988296)

Yeah, companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders, but they also have the benefit of the business judgment rule, which means that you can't win in a lawsuit without something really egregiously stupid or illegal happening(not the exact legal standard, but you get the point).

Re:As a matter of fact, you can (1)

Sean Hederman (870482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988398)

Many, many companies make unprofitable decisions. Merck famously decided to work on a cure for river blindness despite the knowledge that the sufferers would be unlikely to afford the treatment. They then decided to make it available, for free, to anyone in the world in perpetuity. Should their shareholders have taken them to court? It was an action in accord with their company values, but not pure profit motive.

Some companies are explicitly run for their employees, some to improve the environment, some to advance technology. Companies are created to serve a purpose, and usually the best way to achieve that purpose is usually to run a healthy profit. But investors know the purpose of the company when they invest. If the #1 priority is not "maximise shareholder value", they are going in with their eyes wide open. IBM's core values do not include shareholders, Microsoft have them down at #6, and don't address profits or value. Apple doesn't mention shareholders either, and nor does Google. Ironically, Worldcom had shareholder value front and centre.

As for directors duties; there are two common law duties that directors have to shareholders. The duty of loyalty requires that directors put the interests of the company ahead of their own, and the duty of care means they must make good decisions. Nothing about profit there. Shareholders can of course sue the company if they disagree with the business decisions, but they are likely to be very disappointed. Courts are rightly reluctant to interfere in business decisions unless there are clear conflicts of interest or completely irrational decisions. If they did not take this hands off approach, directors would constantly be looking over their shoulders rather than acting in what they feel are the best interests of the company. It would have a chilling effect on risk-taking and decisions. In the US this is called the business judgement rule [wikipedia.org] . Effectively, a court will assume, absent clear evidence to the contrary, that the decisions the directors take are in the best long-term interests of the company, a court "will not substitute its own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment".

Re:There's an easy fix for this (2, Interesting)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987184)

Once you drink the Free Market kool-aid Profit is your prophet and you shall have no other gods or prophets.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987460)

Actually, it's completely legit to establish in your documents of incorporation that profit is not your chief goal - you can put moral duties first, and the board would then have a fiduciary duty to those goals over profit. No one does, because it makes it hard to find any investors if you do that.

Bible.com should really have done that, however, if thier intent all along was to focus on prophets over profits, and then the lawsuit wouldn't have merit.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (-1, Troll)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986870)

I can see it from the investor's point of view however. A company has a responsibility to the shareholders and if they are passing up a profitable business opportunity, then they deserve to get sued and lose.

Bullshit. A company has no responsibilities beyond legal ones. There is no way for a company to know in advance whether a decision will be good or bad; the company can make some very reasonable guesses but they're still guesses. It's an investor's responsibility to do proper research before investing in a company and to keep the emotion out of their decisions otherwise shit like this happens.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988064)

That's a load of BS. If you could sue a company for not being profitable then there would be no risk in the stock market. Every time something didn't go your way then you could just sue. If they don't like it they can sell their stocks like other people do.

They know the company is sitting on a highly valuable domain and assume it will eventually be sold. They want to force it now so they can take advantage of it. If they don't want to wait for something that may eventually happen they can sell their stocks and buy something more profitable.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (-1, Flamebait)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986728)

Agreed, but there's an even easier fix: CNAME pornbible.com to their site, and viola, TRAFFIC like there's no tomorrow! Additionally, I'm producing some related products: Extremely flammable bibles and korans, a line of fire-proof bibles and korans, and a dildo with a crucifix handle (Sorry, it's Friday and I'm a bit edgy for the room). Everybody wins! 8^) And I'll be gets mines!

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986800)

Do your part for the DHS! Leave an extra bag at the airport or a suspicious package anywhere. Test the system!

"'Have your bags been in your possession the whole time?' No, usually the night before I travel (just as the moon is rising), I place my suitcases out on the street corner and leave them there unattended for several hours, just for good luck."

"'Did you pack your bags yourself?' No, Carrot Top packed my bags. He and Martha Stewart and Florence Henderson came over to the house last night. Fixed me a lovely lobster newburg, gave me a full body massage with sacred oils from India, performed a four-way around the world and then they packed my bags. Next question."

-George Carlin

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

Ziest (143204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987634)

a dildo with a crucifix handle

Sorry, someone has already come up with that one. My ex-girlfriend had one as well as a baby jesus butt plug. I guess going to catholic school gave her a few, ummmm, kinks?

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988176)

Sorry, someone has already come up with that one. My ex-girlfriend had one as well as a baby jesus butt plug.

Um wow...where can I meet chicks like that?

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

Fortunato_NC (736786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986774)

If you manage a company for stockholders, you have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit. The article says that the company's founders claim they have a "sacred purpose", but if that's the case, they should have sought out donations, not investments.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986836)

If you manage a company for stockholders, you have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit.

Not true at all, you have a duty to reflect on your stockholders desires maybe, but in this case especially I doubt that many of the stockholders' first priority is to make money. Lets pretend that the majority of people bought stock in Google because of their 'Do No Evil' mantra, and that those people made that position clear at stockholders' meetings. Google would then have a responsibility to the stockholders to stay true to that mantra, even at the expense of profits. The default position is that the number one priority is profits, but as stockholders you have the right to make your voice heard on other priorities and if there was ever a company that is likely to place something above profit I'd say it's pretty that the owners of bible.com would be one of them.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987200)

Not true at all, you have a duty to reflect on your stockholders desires maybe, but in this case especially I doubt that many of the stockholders' first priority is to make money.

In point of fact the current law is that, for for-profit firms, the board's responsibility is to maximize value to shareholders. If they fail to do so, they really can be sued by their shareholders. To do the sort of thing you're describing, you need to incorporate as a non-profit.

In practice, it's pretty difficult to win these suits, as courts have ruled that pretty much any action by the board that can in any way be said to increase the value of the company satisfies this requirement. Corporate charity, for instance, is justifiable by it's positive impact on the firm's reputation.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987866)

is justifiable by it's positive impact on the firm's reputation

And/or it's taxes.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (2, Insightful)

pthisis (27352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988346)

In point of fact the current law is that, for for-profit firms, the board's responsibility is to maximize value to shareholders.

Unless they're in Revlon mode, the board's first legal responsibility is to act in accordance with the articles of incorporation (which may or may not prioritize shareholder value above other corporate goals).

Re:There's an easy fix for this (5, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987098)

Supposedly, the "investor" was given his shares because of a $400,000 debt that the owners could not pay back. Further, the site hasn't been developed because this shareholder has been fighting with the board about control over the company. So I'm guessing he would like to buy up the majority of the stock, if it were possible. Though I doubt he could dump his shares for the 400k they cost him.

Of course Bible.com is a bad business idea to begin with. Everyone has a bible, and there are basically billions of searchable bibles online. Religion tends to be face-to-face, or at least televised. Money in religion comes from donations, not advertising. And, of course, a domain name is not a business idea, it is a business asset. Without a real idea, there isn't a real business.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987388)

Money in religion comes from donations, not advertising.

I wish you had told my church's finance committee this before they looked into buying a 15ft tall caveman cartoon to advertise tithing. Thankfully they balked at the quote, but they printed tons of fliers and some 6ft standups. :(

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987774)

I wish you had told my church's finance committee this before they looked into buying a 15ft tall caveman cartoon to advertise tithing. Thankfully they balked at the quote, but they printed tons of fliers and some 6ft standups. :(

So easy, even a caveman could do it?

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987886)

Actually this sounds like a pretty cool church.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987508)

I'd love to own bible.com. I'd sell Bibles on it. I'll give them $10,000 for it.

Re:There's an easy fix for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987620)

Everyone has a bible

Everyone?

Re:There's an easy fix for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33988190)

Social networking maybe? It's the new web 2.0...

who'd have thought.. (5, Funny)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986638)

So, there is no prophet?

Re:who'd have thought.. (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987038)

He's a nonprophet for profit, not a prophet for nonprofit. Of course that makes this whole thing about false prophets and false profits.

Re:who'd have thought.. (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988426)

No, it simply proves that god hates the internet.

For lack of ... prophet? (4, Funny)

rekenner (849871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986646)

FTFY.

It's easy, actually (5, Funny)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986654)

All you need to make a camel pass through a needle's eye is to grind it very finely.

Re:It's easy, actually (2, Funny)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986744)

The translators of the bible got it wrong. What they were supposed to say is:

"It is easier for a man to enter a camel if he stands upon a box."

Re:It's easy, actually (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987380)

The translators of the bible got it wrong. What they were supposed to say is: "It is easier for a man to enter a camel if he stands upon a box."

In all seriousness, most biblical scholars believe this is a mistranslation from Greek where the word for rope (ka' mi los) was mistaken for camel (ka' me los) since they are very similar. The original biblical phrase was more likely:

"It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

Re:It's easy, actually (1)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987640)

Another interpretation is that in order for a camel to go through the gate in a city wall not designed for commerce or that was presently configured to just allow people to pass (the needle's eye), it had to be unloaded first of its burdens. The driver, burdens, and camel could then go through the narrow gate and then load up again. This was obviously a lot of work - hence easier for that operation to be done than a rich man to enter heaven.

I do like your explanation as well.

Re:It's easy, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987570)

Thats from the Koran, not the Bible

Re:It's easy, actually (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986786)

Wood chipper, mortar and pestle, and a lot of patience. Or a freakishly huge needle.

Re:It's easy, actually (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987208)

Or find it very grindly....

Re:It's easy, actually (1)

elecmahm (1194167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987468)

But what if you forgot your R. Kelly CDs?

Re:It's easy, actually (1)

BForrester (946915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987604)

All you need to make a camel pass through a needle's eye is to grind it very finely.

OR save yourself the mess on the floor and just use a larger needle.

Re:It's easy, actually (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987844)

All you need to make a camel pass through a needle's eye is to grind it very finely.

Will it blend?

Re:It's easy, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33988408)

That's what you mom told me. I didn't buy it

Devaluation (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986664)

$100 million? I knew that the dollar was devalueing but dropping to such a low level is really scary.

You got it the wrong way (1)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986674)

Mr. James Solakian, you are gravely mistaken. The matter of fact is that their duty is to be non-profitable and helpful to people. And considering you are one their board members, you should have followed the path of forgiveness, rather than filing a suite. If someone is breaching their duty, its you!

What are "Christian business principles", exactly? (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986704)

I don't think they teach "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" to aspiring MBAs these days.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986806)

Chick-fil-a [chick-fil-a.com] does it - they're not open on Sundays, treat their workers well, environmental stewardship, and other things that are branded "liberal" by the Fox News crowd and yet, they make boat loads of money doing things that others would think would eat into profitability and make one uncompetitive.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987004)

They do all that with a weirdo name too.

I lived in texas for 3 years and I never went to a chick-fil-a because I thought they were some sort of middle-eastern humus place, selling chick-pea filler.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987488)

But their website requires Flash!

Evil! :)

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

frieza79 (947618) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987534)

Environmental stewardship? They use styrofoam cups and disperse ketchup in tiny packets. There's two things off the top of my head that say they don't care about "the environment"

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988290)

Admit it: if they dispensed ketchup into paper cups (how would that go over in the drive-thru, BTW), you would complain that they're cutting down old-growth forests. The fact that you are spewing your pedantic drivel over the internet tells me that you probably make compromises in your own life in order to participate in civilization.

I haven't seen a styrofoam cup there, but then I've never bought any hot beverage.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (5, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987696)

It's not "liberal" when an individual or corporation decides to do these things. It's considered "liberal" when the government forces individuals to do these things, or extracts money from individuals and corporations in order to do these things themselves.

Many conservatives participate in a lot of charity, I'm not sure why you consider those two things to be mutually exclusive.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988336)

Republican also support everyone paying for what charities they give to. It's called a tax deduction. If the republicans really believe that forcing tax dollar that go to cause is wrong, the would all be repealing tax deductions, and remove all support to religion out of the government.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

djdevon3 (947872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987892)

It's because they have the best chiken sandvich in the entire universe. I want a Chick-fil-a now, damn you, because it's an hour's drive to the nearest one.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

titanium93 (839011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988062)

I go to the same church as the founder/owner of Chic-fil-a.

Well, If I went to church, I would be going to the same church as him.

Alright, he goes to the same church as my wife.

Happy now?

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988222)

other things that are branded "liberal" by the Fox News crowd

What are you smoking? Really? I'm surprised progressives aren't picketing Chick-Fil-A for favoring Christians (except for Seventh-Day Adventists and SD Baptists, of course) by choosing Sunday. I guess a social conservative might complain if the Chick-Fil-A was actually a chain of nudie bars that preferred locations near elementary schools, but other than that most non-leftist people think a company should get to set its own policies as long as they don't break any laws.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988282)

They are also a heavily Christian organization. My ex wife works there and asked me not to tell them about the fact that she cheated on me with her now husband who was a Asst. Manager. She was afraid he would get fired for it.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988350)

I'm a Christian and I certainly wouldn't do that. Now, if the way I heard about it was her boasting how she got the best stuff in the divorce settlement, then I'd have concerns about her ethics.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988458)

Yeah, because they put CRACK in their chicken nuggets. Have you had them? There is certainly SOMETHING highly addicting they add.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988354)

They are : Give us your money and do what we say. No different then any other wacky cult.

Re:What are "Christian business principles", exact (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988430)

Apparently, they teach "invest thy money in dubious internet businesses, and then sue them".

Yea, because... (-1, Flamebait)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986720)

Religion really has a strong history of following through on its promises and achieving anything at all, hahahahahahahaha. Dumb ass investor should have known better.Thats what you get for betting on shit.

It's full of ads (2, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986732)

Every once in a while I'll google around for a quote that I know is Biblical, simply because I want the chapter and verse.

bible.cc is one site that comes up in Google when you do that. It has multiple translations and languages even!

Bible.cc has bookstore links and just a few small ads. Bible.com has an interstitial, and comes off as "megachurch Christian" rather than Bible-study oriented.

That they failed to capitalize seems likely; but if every board that failed to capitalize were liable, it'd be a different world, or would it? I've held a number of stocks where there were shareholder class actions, and have always marveled that anybody would want to essentially sue themselves. The only winners are the lawyers. Suits like this are usually just a sign that the company is circling the drain.

There's really "nothing to see here. Move on".

No wonder it failed, it broke the 10th Commandment (2, Interesting)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986760)

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor his website.

Maybe if it was set up with little or no regard for profit (like Wikipedia, [wikipedia.org] ) it would have had God's blessing and succeeded?

He should read his own website (5, Insightful)

x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986762)

1 Corinthians 6:7
Lawsuits among Christians [bible.com] are a no-no in the Bible.

Re:He should read his own website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33986814)

You must be new (to earth) here...

Re:He should read his own website (3, Funny)

TriZz (941893) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987220)

I guess you RTFB?

Re:He should read his own website (1)

drawfour (791912) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987530)

Nothing in the article indicates that the shareholder is a Christian. He was given the shares to settle a business debt.

Re:He should read his own website (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987650)

Yeah, the problem is that everybody has their own interpretation.

Just look at the US. Supposedly the vast majority of the people there are christian. But it's so litigious of a place that clearly nobody cares what the bible has to say on that matter.

Indulgence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33986768)

maybe they should start selling indulgences

Inevitably it will lead to this (2, Funny)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986778)

The Court finds the defendant Jesus Christ guilty of not leveraging your power to make us all rich!

internet magic at work (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33986896)

Why would anyone agree to buy the domain name for 100 million dollars when there is no clear way of monetizing it or making it a profitable venture? It's so 1997 to think that the normal rules of business do not apply to the internet, because it's a magical place where there is profit for all and every 50$ investment yields a billion dollar return.

Tithe? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987204)

And I'm sure Mr. Solakian would gladly give 10% of his suit winnings to the Church, right?

Why does bible.com need shareholders? (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987216)

I don't understand how and why they need shareholders if they have no plan to be profitable.

Making money off of Bible.com? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987424)

Jesus must be rotating in his grave now.

And yes, the pun about Jesus's grave is fully intended.

Re:Making money off of Bible.com? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988048)

And yes, the pun about Jesus's grave is fully intended.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

I find... (2, Funny)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987472)

...your lack of profit disturbing.

Heh (1)

ninjamonkey26 (1258466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987546)

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away...

But if it made a profit.... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987554)

wouldn't it be "a profit without honor?"

Bible.com? (2, Insightful)

edremy (36408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987708)

I admit to finding it amusing that it's a .com address. Shouldn't it be a .org at least? You could make the claim for .edu, perhaps. A lot of political candidates would claim it should be .gov, and reading a bunch of the passages I might even accept .mil, but .com?

What next- bible.biz?

Re:Bible.com? (2, Funny)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987924)

It should be a .org, and based in Ireland. Bible.org.ie!

Re:Bible.com? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988072)

Why are you amused it's a .com if it has shareholders?

On a side note, an .edu requires it to be an accredited school [educause.edu] . I do not think a bible qualifies as a college.

go47 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33987732)

Crrek, abysmal more gay than they Java IRC client worthwhile. It's Users With Large

Have they not heard the Good News... (2, Interesting)

forkfail (228161) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987860)

... as brought to you by Supply Side Jesus [youtube.com] ?

A profit no-brainer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33988074)

Surely you could make a fortune from religious-themed porn! Didn't Jesus say something about "take this cup and drink from it?" Was he talking to two girls by chance? And I think most people say something like "Oh My God!" or "Jesus H Christ" when they are first exposed to goatse...

What Would Jesus Do? (1)

mordejai (702496) | more than 3 years ago | (#33988094)

Sue!

To quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33988466)

"When dealing with a religious s.o.b., Get. It. In. Writing. Can't trust a word he says, not with the Good Lord telling him how to #@$% you on the deal." - William S. Burroughs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?