3 ms·

Are you arguing about the case in this article or about general issues you have with the Amazon marketplace? Text is a crappy medium, this is not my native lang

Are you arguing about the case in this article or about general issues you have with the Amazon marketplace? Text is a crappy medium, this is not my native language, but you seem to have a problem with Amazon regardless of the issue in the article? If 30 million isn't enough, what would be enough? "All the profit of this product"? "All the revenue based on this product"? And .. would you award that to some random party? Because that's what this is about as well, no? Someone was hurt (financially, emotionally) and now there's supposed to be a pay out. Would you suggest giving the "victims" 100 houses for the one house they lost? One party/family should be able to own a small village of luxury houses to hurt Amazon? I'm going to retire from this thread - it's past midnight and I was confused a long time ago. Further arguments make this process only _more_ alien and I certainly don't want to convince the US population that they Should Not Do This. But there's no way in hell to integrate this process with my upbringing - it feels entirely wrong and far too much like a cash grab. Chalk it up to cultural differences?

mancerayder 10y ago
Cultural differences? Maybe, but not in the way you think. It's cultural in the political philosophy more than anything else. Let's summarize it thusly: the U.S. regulatory system, while not totally a free market, is a lot less stringent and red-tape-heavy than places like the EU. HOWEVER, you need a disincentive for 'bad actors' to cause harm, and in the U.S. we rely more on tort law ("wrongs") than in the EU, where things are more tightly regulated (in theory). It's a matter of degree. Rather than risk fines or even, in some cases, jail time, in the U.S. companies are afraid of getting sued, and thus you see all those 'don't put your finger in the socket' 'this knife is sharp, be careful' type notices on consumer products. The cultural aspect is around the idea that government shouldn't interfere overly in the market. The country was founded on the ideas of philosophers like Adam Smith. If 30 million isn't enough, what would be enough? "All the profit of this product"? "All the revenue based on this product"? And .. would you award that to some random party? Because that's what this is about as well, no? Someone was hurt (financially, emotionally) and now there's supposed to be a pay out. Would you suggest giving the "victims" 100 houses for the one house they lost? One party/family should be able to own a small village of luxury houses to hurt Amazon? Good question, and sometimes class action lawsuits (involving hundreds, or even thousands of people) happen. Note, the point of 'punitive' is punishiment. Disincentive. Don't do it again. It's up to lawyers / juries to 'decide' what the renumeration is. As to whom goes a bulk, well, you can rest assured law can be a lucrative profession for a reason.

mancerayder 10y ago

Cultural differences? Maybe, but not in the way you think. It's cultural in the political philosophy more than anything else. Let's summarize it thusly: the U.S. regulatory system, while not totally a free market, is a lot less stringent and red-tape-heavy than places like the EU. HOWEVER, you need a disincentive for 'bad actors' to cause harm, and in the U.S. we rely more on tort law ("wrongs") than in the EU, where things are more tightly regulated (in theory). It's a matter of degree. Rather than risk fines or even, in some cases, jail time, in the U.S. companies are afraid of getting sued, and thus you see all those 'don't put your finger in the socket' 'this knife is sharp, be careful' type notices on consumer products. The cultural aspect is around the idea that government shouldn't interfere overly in the market. The country was founded on the ideas of philosophers like Adam Smith. If 30 million isn't enough, what would be enough? "All the profit of this product"? "All the revenue based on this product"? And .. would you award that to some random party? Because that's what this is about as well, no? Someone was hurt (financially, emotionally) and now there's supposed to be a pay out. Would you suggest giving the "victims" 100 houses for the one house they lost? One party/family should be able to own a small village of luxury houses to hurt Amazon? Good question, and sometimes class action lawsuits (involving hundreds, or even thousands of people) happen. Note, the point of 'punitive' is punishiment. Disincentive. Don't do it again. It's up to lawyers / juries to 'decide' what the renumeration is. As to whom goes a bulk, well, you can rest assured law can be a lucrative profession for a reason.