>Someone help me understand how come a person/entity who merely owns 3.6% of a company has the right to be this aggressive about the future growth and policy-making of the company?

Some help me to understand how an owner of a company is not entitled to be aggressive about the future of the company. It's mostly in Silicon Valley where nobody cares about shareowner's rights (and yet everyone is so concerned about the little get getting the short end of the stick).