I'll repeat the commentary I left on Kennerly's blog (which is always a great read, by the way):

------- This debate is fascinating.

Conservative commentators like Bainbridge et al should be taking the stance that eBay loses this case because an investor takes the company he invests in, poison pills, staggered board--presumably minimized profit aspirations--and all. More-liberal commenatators on the other hand should be crying foul at the blatant shareholder disenfranchisement. But those roles are reversed. Which just goes to show how weak legal arguments are in the face of moral instinct:

Disenfranchisement is okay--you take the company you invest in--when the company is doing something good. Minority-shareholder activism is okay--you aren't bound by pre-existing rules--when the shareholder is trying to do something good.