Talk:Pac-Man defense

proposed change

I think the line "It is when a company that is under a hostile takeover acquires its would-be buyer." should be "It is when a company that is under a hostile takeover ATTEMPTS TO OR DOES acquire its would-be buyer." My understanding of the pac-man defense is that the defender only needs to scare away the would-be buyer; not necessarily acquire them.Scott denne 01:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, just the act of attempting to take over the hostile company means the defense has been set in place...

Also, the Wikipedia entry for Martin Marietta says;

In 1982 Martin Marietta was subject to a hostile takeover bid by the Bendix Corporation. Bendix bought the majority of Martin Marietta shares and in effect owned the company. However, Martin Marietta's management used the short time separating ownership and control to sell non-core businesses and launch its own hostile takeover of Bendix

I feel this is much more clear in explaining what originally happened. Other sources also mention that funds from a war-chest could be used to buy up the hostile companies stock. Adding this could give the reader some insight about where the "power pill", in essence, comes from.

Finally, the extra information about the "white knight" deal and Allied, at the end, although interesting and historically significant, has nothing to do with the Pac-Man defense. So it only confuses the reader and I feel it should be made into a footnote. WaltTX (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)