I don't know if it's as effective to go after the company for this. In an ideal world, you'd go after the people who made the decision, even if they've left the company.
I think I see where you're coming from, but at the same time we shouldn't establish a precedent that makes it even easier for companies to hide behind some named scapegoat. The decision was carried out in IBM's name, and IBM bears responsibility for it.
> we shouldn't establish a precedent that makes it even easier for companies to hide behind some named scapegoat.
As opposed to just hiding behind the corporate charter?
Not sure what kind of answer you expect. The existence of one oft-used loophole is a reason to create another?