Be honest; nobody actually believed the courts wouldn't side with the large multi-national corporation, did they? Our system is so broken on every level, it's downright pathetic.
To be honest, Amazon will win the suit if the law is neutrally applied. Amazon is a company, with the right not to do business with people it doesn't like.Be honest; nobody actually believed the courts wouldn't side with the large multi-national corporation, did they? Our system is so broken on every level, it's downright pathetic.
Pretty sure the basis of the suit isn't that they refuse to do business but that they unilaterally breached their own contract for how it would be ended. And did so in an explicitly biased way atleast allegedly in favor of larger and more hegemonic partners.To be honest, Amazon will win the suit if the law is neutrally applied. Amazon is a company, with the right not to do business with people it doesn't like.
The antitrust has no chance of working. The breach of contract one might.Pretty sure the basis of the suit isn't that they refuse to do business but that they unilaterally breached their own contract for how it would be ended. And did so in an explicitly biased way atleast allegedly in favor of larger and more hegemonic partners.
So basically a antitrust lawsuit joined with a breach of contract one.
True, filing in their home state didn't help. I mean Amazon would have probably just field to have it transferred anyway but they probabaly chose to skip that fight in the hopes their case is clear enough they could get Parler back up faster. Thats coming back to bite them now. Unbiased Judges aren't unfortunately.The antitrust has no chance of working. The breach of contract one might.
You really had no idea what the lawsuit was actually about, did you?The antitrust has no chance of working. The breach of contract one might.
No, I had read a fair amount about it, and looking at it, there's no chance that it would work. I know (roughly, IANAL) what antitrust lawsuits entail, and for Amazon to be sued over antitrust for banning Parler, it would have to at least, have some financial stake in something Twitter-like, or have colluded with a Twitter-like service, to establish that Amazon was trying to get rid of a competitor. There's no way the plaintiffs are going to be able to show this, so it will fail.You really had no idea what the lawsuit was actually about, did you?
No offense, but I think an actual lawyer knows a bit more than you do as to whether or not Parler's case has any merits:No, I had read a fair amount about it, and looking at it, there's no chance that it would work. I know (roughly, IANAL) what antitrust lawsuits entail, and for Amazon to be sued over antitrust for banning Parler, it would have to at least, have some financial stake in something Twitter-like, or have colluded with a Twitter-like service, to establish that Amazon was trying to get rid of a competitor. There's no way the plaintiffs are going to be able to show this, so it will fail.
This goes into it more, and (as a professor says in the article) if Parler proves that Amazon did it because of politics, they've won the argument for Amazon, as antitrust law doesn't deal with shutting out view points, but shutting out competitors. And Parler and Amazon aren't competitors.
Given that he's not a American lawyer, and on top of that, he's not a anti-trust lawyer, and the citation I gave quotes many experts on the topic, including lawyers, no, I don't think he does. Antitrust law requires harming competitors. There is no competition between Parler and Amazon.No offense, but I think an actual lawyer knows a bit more than you do as to whether or not Parler's case has any merits:
And you keep focusing on the smaller Antitrust aspect of the lawsuit, when the breach of contract remains the core of it. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.Given that he's not a American lawyer, and on top of that, he's not a anti-trust lawyer, and the citation I gave quotes many experts on the topic, including lawyers, no, I don't think he does. Antitrust law requires harming competitors. There is no competition between Parler and Amazon.
No, actually he didn't. He said this:And you keep focusing on the smaller Antitrust aspect of the lawsuit, when the breach of contract remains the core of it. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
He's pretty clearly said that breach of contract has a better chance than antitrust. Claiming otherwise is being dishonest, and it looks pretty much like Abhorsen only concentrated on the antitrust part because that's what other people started arguing to the post above.The antitrust has no chance of working. The breach of contract one might.
And then he said this, in response to my post calling out his apparent ignorance as to the particulars of the lawsuit:No, actually he didn't. He said this:
He's pretty clearly said that breach of contract has a better chance than antitrust. Claiming otherwise is being dishonest, and it looks pretty much like Abhorsen only concentrated on the antitrust part because that's what other people started arguing to the post above.
Completely ignoring the breach of contract aspect, and insisting that the lawsuit had no chance of working; implying that the Antitrust aspect was all there was.No, I had read a fair amount about it, and looking at it, there's no chance that it would work. I know (roughly, IANAL) what antitrust lawsuits entail, and for Amazon to be sued over antitrust for banning Parler, it would have to at least, have some financial stake in something Twitter-like, or have colluded with a Twitter-like service, to establish that Amazon was trying to get rid of a competitor. There's no way the plaintiffs are going to be able to show this, so it will fail.
This goes into it more, and (as a professor says in the article) if Parler proves that Amazon did it because of politics, they've won the argument for Amazon, as antitrust law doesn't deal with shutting out view points, but shutting out competitors. And Parler and Amazon aren't competitors.
The antitrust is by no means the smaller part of the lawsuit. Even if they win the breach of contract, all that means is that they get 30 days of AWS before leaving, not 2. It's just there to get immediate injunctive relief to push off this problem. Read the filing, which consists almost entirely of a probable hopeless attempt at an antitrust lawsuit. Or realize that without the antitrust part, all that happens is that AWS dumps them 28 days later. Parler needs the antitrust to stay on AWS long term, which means that the antitrust is the crucial part of this lawsuit, but unfortunately for Parler, it's also the part that has no chance of surviving.And you keep focusing on the smaller Antitrust aspect of the lawsuit, when the breach of contract remains the core of it. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps I misjudged your position a bit; but I still think you're misjudging their case. Regardless, I would hope that you can at least agree that the fact the judge did not rule in Parler's favor, specifically on the issue of breach of contract, has nothing to do with the legal standing of their case.The antitrust is by no means the smaller part of the lawsuit. Even if they win the breach of contract, all that means is that they get 30 days of AWS before leaving, not 2. It's just there to get immediate injunctive relief to push off this problem. Read the filing, which consists almost entirely of a probable hopeless attempt at an antitrust lawsuit. Or realize that without the antitrust part, all that happens is that AWS dumps them 28 days later. Parler needs the antitrust to stay on AWS long term, which means that the antitrust is the crucial part of this lawsuit, but unfortunately for Parler, it's also the part that has no chance of surviving.
You really had no idea what @Abhorsen was actually talking about, did you?Perhaps I misjudged your position a bit; but I still think you're misjudging their case. Regardless, I would hope that you can at least agree that the fact the judge did not rule in Parler's favor, specifically on the issue of breach of contract, has nothing to do with the legal standing of their case.
So I just listened to the Judge's ruling, and no, it has a lot to do with whether Parler will win their legal case (though not their standing, which Parler definitely has).Perhaps I misjudged your position a bit; but I still think you're misjudging their case. Regardless, I would hope that you can at least agree that the fact the judge did not rule in Parler's favor, specifically on the issue of breach of contract, has nothing to do with the legal standing of their case.
Actually Amazon signed a pretty big deal with Twitter recently.No, I had read a fair amount about it, and looking at it, there's no chance that it would work. I know (roughly, IANAL) what antitrust lawsuits entail, and for Amazon to be sued over antitrust for banning Parler, it would have to at least, have some financial stake in something Twitter-like, or have colluded with a Twitter-like service, to establish that Amazon was trying to get rid of a competitor. There's no way the plaintiffs are going to be able to show this, so it will fail.
This goes into it more, and (as a professor says in the article) if Parler proves that Amazon did it because of politics, they've won the argument for Amazon, as antitrust law doesn't deal with shutting out view points, but shutting out competitors. And Parler and Amazon aren't competitors.
That's not a financial stake. That's a customer/business relationship. A financial stake would be owning a good part of Twitter, for example (think stakeholder). The financial stake part is basically asking is Amazon a competitor/owns a competitor of Parler. It clearly doesn't.Actually Amazon signed a pretty big deal with Twitter recently.
Unfortunately for them, that deal creates enough of a financial stake that trying to claim there wasn't one would be silly.
A financial stakeholder is defined as "groups that stand to benefit if the venture or company succeeds" this very specifically includes "suppliers" which Amazon falls under because it supplies the hosting space for Twitter's servers.That's not a financial stake. That's a customer/business relationship. A financial stake would be owning a good part of Twitter, for example (think stakeholder). The financial stake part is basically asking is Amazon a competitor/owns a competitor of Parler. It clearly doesn't.
Moreover, Parler didn't say that Amazon had a financial stake in it's filing (because Amazon obviously doesn't), but instead tried to claim collusion. This means that the claim of antitrust rides or dies by the collusion factor, and ownership is irrelevant.