4 ms·

So the court ruled he must restore the access and he just ignores the ruling. Can someone explain again why? And, of course, as a surfer and computer scientist

by option 9y ago

So the court ruled he must restore the access and he just ignores the ruling. Can someone explain again why? And, of course, as a surfer and computer scientist I find Mr. Khosla disgusting because of this.

option 9y ago
Btw, if you care, contact your elected official. Surfrider foundation has a link to do so http://www.surfrider.org http://www.surfrider.org
pmoriarty 9y ago
I'm not sure if you're asking why he ignores the ruling or why he's allowed to get away with it. Regarding why he ignores the ruling, the article says he does it on "principle". Presumably, he feels it's his land and he can do whatever he wants with it. But it would be interesting to hear him defend his position himself rather than having to put words in his mouth. As to why he gets away with it, presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough. Maybe he's just rich enough to pay whatever fine has been levied on him and keep access closed. It reminds me of when Microsoft was fined by the courts something like a million dollars a day for violating antitrust regulations, and they just paid and kept violating (if I'm remembering this right). Some companies prefer to just get the law changed in their favor instead, or maybe get people elected who will defund regulating bodies or put their cronies in control, etc. When you're rich enough you have many options for evading the law.
- option 9y ago
  >> "the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough" - This seems to violate state's constitution. How can this be something anyone can regularly get away with?!
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough And this is the crux of it. Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life. At what point does this become contempt of court and lead to jail time? Unfortunately, in the US, the answer is likely "never, because he has too much net worth".
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    In this respect the income-dependent fines used in (amongst others) Sweden works better. The sentence will be for a certain number of 'dagsböter' (day-fines, [1]), the amount payable for which depends on the income of the payee. While a 'day fine' for someone who lives on the dole might be 150 kr (~$17), someone like Khosla might be looking at a day fine of more than 100.000 kr. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
  - desdiv 9y ago
    >Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life. I believe that for a fine to be fair, it must be based on a percentage basis of disposable income[0]. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      The actual income of many extremely wealthy people is pretty small to non-existant compared to their net worth (not even counting assets they may have squirreled away in secret accounts, under their family member's names, or other creative accounting tricks).
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        Is it? Even 2% interest on a billion dollars is $20M/yr.
    - icantdrive55 9y ago
      The time has come. We need to tie fees/fines to income. There's a bill in California that, in all honestly, I don't know what's exactly in the bill. But it's trying to tie fines to income. Now--besides my laziness, I have felt the sting of fees/fines since I was a young man. It will be a miracle if it passes. We need it badly. This is not the America I saluted to.
    - 9y ago
- Shivetya 9y ago
  Reminds also when there were these water shortages and you could not even shame these types into cutting back. Simple solution, set fine to a percentage of income or wealth. Require that penalty to be under the three strikes and you are out. So we hit you with 0.0025% of your wealth at three strikes and keep moving the decimal to the right until you play ball.
JamesVI 9y ago
He appealed the ruling and the appeal was only heard a couple of weeks ago.

by option 9y ago

option 9y ago

Btw, if you care, contact your elected official. Surfrider foundation has a link to do so http://www.surfrider.org http://www.surfrider.org

pmoriarty 9y ago

I'm not sure if you're asking why he ignores the ruling or why he's allowed to get away with it. Regarding why he ignores the ruling, the article says he does it on "principle". Presumably, he feels it's his land and he can do whatever he wants with it. But it would be interesting to hear him defend his position himself rather than having to put words in his mouth. As to why he gets away with it, presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough. Maybe he's just rich enough to pay whatever fine has been levied on him and keep access closed. It reminds me of when Microsoft was fined by the courts something like a million dollars a day for violating antitrust regulations, and they just paid and kept violating (if I'm remembering this right). Some companies prefer to just get the law changed in their favor instead, or maybe get people elected who will defund regulating bodies or put their cronies in control, etc. When you're rich enough you have many options for evading the law.

option 9y ago
>> "the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough" - This seems to violate state's constitution. How can this be something anyone can regularly get away with?!
FireBeyond 9y ago
> presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough And this is the crux of it. Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life. At what point does this become contempt of court and lead to jail time? Unfortunately, in the US, the answer is likely "never, because he has too much net worth".
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  In this respect the income-dependent fines used in (amongst others) Sweden works better. The sentence will be for a certain number of 'dagsböter' (day-fines, [1]), the amount payable for which depends on the income of the payee. While a 'day fine' for someone who lives on the dole might be 150 kr (~$17), someone like Khosla might be looking at a day fine of more than 100.000 kr. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
- desdiv 9y ago
  >Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life. I believe that for a fine to be fair, it must be based on a percentage basis of disposable income[0]. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    The actual income of many extremely wealthy people is pretty small to non-existant compared to their net worth (not even counting assets they may have squirreled away in secret accounts, under their family member's names, or other creative accounting tricks).
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Is it? Even 2% interest on a billion dollars is $20M/yr.
  - icantdrive55 9y ago
    The time has come. We need to tie fees/fines to income. There's a bill in California that, in all honestly, I don't know what's exactly in the bill. But it's trying to tie fines to income. Now--besides my laziness, I have felt the sting of fees/fines since I was a young man. It will be a miracle if it passes. We need it badly. This is not the America I saluted to.
  - 9y ago
Shivetya 9y ago
Reminds also when there were these water shortages and you could not even shame these types into cutting back. Simple solution, set fine to a percentage of income or wealth. Require that penalty to be under the three strikes and you are out. So we hit you with 0.0025% of your wealth at three strikes and keep moving the decimal to the right until you play ball.

JamesVI 9y ago

He appealed the ruling and the appeal was only heard a couple of weeks ago.