Laying off some Microsoft (who owns Nokia) employees in a company that already has many duplicate positions already in place makes sense. There's only a certain number of positions available and cutting down the excess and redundant positions, while difficult for those being cut, offers increased money for the company and subsequently its employees. It's not a bailout, and the positions being cut are positions already filled by another person. Imagine if you were at work and your boss brought someone in to do the same job as you. It's rough for the employees who lost there job, but it makes sense for Microsoft and the rest of the employees.
Laying off thousands of employees to bail out Nokia is unacceptable. There was little to gain financially as most of the Nokia products were non-smart phones. Microsoft made a poor choice and now must pay the consequences for that choice. It should not fall on the shoulders of the employees that management did not conduct an appropriate cost analysis before the acquisition.
Whilst bailing out Nokia may be tempting, Microsoft should think about the long term consequences of large lay offs. The long term benefits of maintaining a loyal and dedicated team of their own should outweigh the immediate monetary benefits of bailing out a company which may prove unsustainable to continue running.
I think that Microsoft is just wasting their time, energy and effort by implementing these layoffs under the premise of bailing Nokia out. I think that a layoff, by definition, is a ficticious bareer to the natural flow of market, and it eventually ends up being ignored and violated affter all.
Nokia used to be the phone that everyone had, and then people and technology evolved and Nokia stayed exactly where it was- in the 'stone-age' of technology. It would not be fair for people that are working in growing, developing departments to lose their jobs to bail out a company that won't even be considered within the next generation.