3 ms·
You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do wi
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable.
Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. They could close any accounts that do as much, but they could do that for any reason they want already - making the term rather pointless. And the same is true here. eBay tried to shove in ridiculous anti-competitive rules in their terms. Amazon didn't care. So now they're adding just another chip on the mountain of lawsuits they're already involved in as a spiteful hail mary.
- eiaoa 8y ago> You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. That hacking aside is a red herring. > Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable. Sites are owned by particular people and organizations, and they have a right to set the terms (withing reason). It's just a like a landlord who puts a term in their contract saying you can't exercise your right of free speech by yelling your opinions through the wall of your apartment at 3AM. > Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. That term is not meaningless, even if it's in bad taste, and I think that's the fundamental point of our disagreement.