Quote:
Originally Posted by OF1975
Alexander, I have added another comment on the iii site to mention the High Court injunction possibility. Potential investors need to be aware that we arent going away and that we will examine all possibilities when it comes to fighting Phorm.
|
It might be worth you responding to the latest comment by zoiezoie - a bit of a toy/pram ejection moment going on there.
Personally I'd go for the angle that airing these concerns on the iii website is doing a _service_ to those investors. They're investing in a business which is unpopular, deeply mistrusted, has almost certainly been involved in illegal activity with the BT trials, has MPs querying whether they should be allowed to go ahead, and whose clients are beginning to publicly discuss the possibility of pulling out (and have already pulled out in the case of The Guardian). A business where this is happening is not likely to be a particularly sound investment for anyone, regardless of whether they think it's ethically acceptable or not.
Personally I'd have dumped my shares by now anyway no matter what I thought of the technology, as I think it's extremely unlikely Phorm is going to be accepted by most customers in the form originally envisaged, and any watering down of what was originally suggested is going to massively impact on the attractiveness to advertisers, which is in turn going to affect the amount of money Phorm makes.
[EDIT: Saw your post - I think it's worth stressing that investing in Phorm looks like being bad
business, never mind the legal and ethical aspects. Of course, it's the legal and ethical aspects that make it bad business, because it's the legal and ethical aspects that will either see it a) dropped by the ISPs it needs, b) reduced to an opt-in which hardly any customers will take up, or c) prosecuted. Any combination of the above would massively impact shareholder value.]