4 ms·
> Like, what did you expect, that they wouldn't run third shifts or sell the stuff to whoever paid them for it? Yes. Because of those pesky things called "laws
by wybiral 7y ago
> Like, what did you expect, that they wouldn't run third shifts or sell the stuff to whoever paid them for it?
Yes. Because of those pesky things called "laws" and "trade agreements". It's still theft even if it wasn't always difficult to do.
- axaxs 7y agoI mean, you have a point, but it's inevitable. If a person pays you to do something, then you find out they are selling your work for an order of magnitude more than you're making, it's human nature to at least question this, at best mimic it, laws be damned.
- wybiral 7y agoYou seem to be justifying crime because it was so easy to commit that you might as well. Yard ornaments might be easy to steal, I mean, heck, people just leave them in their front yard over night. But it's still theft, it's still illegal, and even though the people made it easy there should still be a penalty for the theft.
- axaxs 7y agoI think most people would agree that idealogical theft is far different than physical theft. Not saying I agree with said theft, but when making deals with known questionable actors, it's a bit of a given.
- mfatica 7y agoJust because someone is a better salesman than you doesn't give you the right to break the law what kind of insane rational is that
- tooltalk 7y agoI agree with you to some degree. I am against the whole notion of non-compete agreement for this reason. But in this particular case with Samsung's OLED, Chinese companies are not only accused of poaching their former/retired employees or stealing (or learning) know-how's or IP, but also smuggling their high-tech manufacturing machinaries out of Samsung suppliers' plants in South Korea to China outright.