Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submitlogin

It seems clear to me that he is asserting the laws are wrong, not that they broke the laws that would get that sort of punishment.



Sure, I'm asserting that the laws aren't even wrong, let alone would they ever be changed in the direction the OP wants. I don't think it is credible to claim these actions are criminally damaging. I don't think copyright infringement is criminally damaging either, mind you, but that's somewhat off topic.

-----


The DoJ did not share your perspective, nor I think do most people.

-----


Um, where has the DOJ tried to lock up executives for preventing poaching?

Your understanding of "most people" may be limited. Keep in mind you live in a politically polarized country.

-----


Did I say the DOJ thought they were to be locked up? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

-----


From the OP: "It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this"

The flow went like this: I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral, so not deserving of prison time. You suggested that the OP meant that the laws are wrong. I said that they're not wrong, nor would any changes to them that incarcerated executives for anti-competitive practices likely ever be put into law. You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people.

I don't think I'm being obtuse, but perhaps I just have a very different perspective on this.

-----


> I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral

> You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people.

As evidenced by the fact that there was an investigation.

-----


The DOJ was investigating antitrust concerns, which is a civil matter (and a rather controversial area of the law).

The OP was discussing the criminal liability of corporations and their officers. That's a huge difference.

-----


It's also a criminal matter, but that has nothing to do with my original post. It's certainly not "completely legal".

The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison.

Anyway, the other poster was correct. If they don't go to prison over this, the laws are wrong ;) And yes, of course I'm aware that they won't. That's exactly what I was lamenting.

-----


Ok, fair point.

I'll just note that antitrust law is rather controversial, and is often enforced on purely political grounds. You'll recall Microsoft's (non) punishment after the last Republican administration was elected, for example.

-----


I am well aware.

This does not change that pretty much everyone here but you thinks this was a bunch of crooked shit.

-----


Given by the upvote/downvote ratio on my recent posts, I don't think that's clear cut.

I do think the visible reaction is fascinating given this is a site dedicated to growing businesses that almost certainly will conduct such practices (completely legally, too).

-----




Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: