5 ms·

Southwest's Bullshit Lawsuit Over a Site That Made $45

38 points by crobertsbmw 9y ago

Osiris 9y ago
It really baffles me how in the U.S. the prosecution of criminal cases puts the burden of proof on the prosecution while in civil cases, the burden is on the defendant to disprove the allegations. That seems so backwards to me.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  Why do you say "the burden is on the defendant"? The usual description is that "the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence".
  - tuna-piano 9y ago
    True from a law perspective, but think about this case. The site had made $45. Just the threat of a lawsuit (that Southwest might not have won) was enough to shut them down. If you fight a big company like Southwest, even if you win, you probably lose (legal fees, concentration, etc).
erric 9y ago
This is one of the reasons I won’t fly swa
ekanes 9y ago
I'm torn. If it's a Good Thing that a company offers this to it's users, but another company causes Southwest to pull the concept because they make it easier to take advantage of, do we all lose together? So, yes, for a time some people gain at Southwest's expense, but long-term I'd kind of rather Southwest kept it. A tech-assisted tragedy of the commons doesn't really help anyone, long-term.
- rahimnathwani 9y ago
  The policy seems to me a form of price discrimination (i.e. separating a single market into two or more separate markets, based on the price elasticity of demand of the customers). People for whom $10 or $20 isn't a big deal, will not bother to check if their flight has gone down in price, so South West gets to charge them the higher price. Others who bother to check a few times get to pay a lower price. It seems similar to coupons/offers in the Safeway app. If you can be bothered to look and add the coupon to your account, you get a discount, but if you're rich you don't bother, and pay the higher price.
tehlike 9y ago
Relevant EFF articles: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/eff-court-accessing-publicly-available-information-internet-not-crime https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/eff-court-accessing-pu... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-down-violating-websites-terms-service-not-crime https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-...
freedom7775 9y ago
Seems like bait to me. Why would you launch a website like that when you know it is going to be attacked? If they actually wanted to provide this service they would have launched the website offshore and ignored south west.
- crobertsbmw 9y ago
  I launched the site. When I was building it, I never expected it to be attacked.

38 points by crobertsbmw 9y ago

It really baffles me how in the U.S. the prosecution of criminal cases puts the burden of proof on the prosecution while in civil cases, the burden is on the defendant to disprove the allegations. That seems so backwards to me.

perl4ever 9y ago
Why do you say "the burden is on the defendant"? The usual description is that "the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence".
- tuna-piano 9y ago
  True from a law perspective, but think about this case. The site had made $45. Just the threat of a lawsuit (that Southwest might not have won) was enough to shut them down. If you fight a big company like Southwest, even if you win, you probably lose (legal fees, concentration, etc).

erric 9y ago

This is one of the reasons I won’t fly swa

ekanes 9y ago

I'm torn. If it's a Good Thing that a company offers this to it's users, but another company causes Southwest to pull the concept because they make it easier to take advantage of, do we all lose together? So, yes, for a time some people gain at Southwest's expense, but long-term I'd kind of rather Southwest kept it. A tech-assisted tragedy of the commons doesn't really help anyone, long-term.

rahimnathwani 9y ago
The policy seems to me a form of price discrimination (i.e. separating a single market into two or more separate markets, based on the price elasticity of demand of the customers). People for whom $10 or $20 isn't a big deal, will not bother to check if their flight has gone down in price, so South West gets to charge them the higher price. Others who bother to check a few times get to pay a lower price. It seems similar to coupons/offers in the Safeway app. If you can be bothered to look and add the coupon to your account, you get a discount, but if you're rich you don't bother, and pay the higher price.

tehlike 9y ago

Relevant EFF articles: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/eff-court-accessing-publicly-available-information-internet-not-crime https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/eff-court-accessing-pu... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-down-violating-websites-terms-service-not-crime https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-...

freedom7775 9y ago

Seems like bait to me. Why would you launch a website like that when you know it is going to be attacked? If they actually wanted to provide this service they would have launched the website offshore and ignored south west.

crobertsbmw 9y ago
I launched the site. When I was building it, I never expected it to be attacked.