4 ms·

Why is that legal?

__s 7y ago
Because software is handled with leaky metaphors Imagine a defective physical product went out. Then the company sent out repair kits. Those kits have a real cost to produce/ship/etc It would still seem kind of silly that a company is sending me repair kits instead of money I can choose whether to invest in repairs or not, but so it goes
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  OK, I can see the metaphor now. I would presume the law is a bit better in the physical world as making repair kits directly impacts your balance that you can’t use for anything else, at the least.
- cco 7y ago
  I think your analogy misses the key point, that is in your analogy the company that sent out the defective physical product is now "fined" by the US government and forced to send out repair kits to those that request them; when a user requests this repair kit the company charges the fund created by the "fine" $813 to send out the repair kit even though the repair kit cost is pennies. It's racketeering.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Your analogy is stillborn. I never ordered the product!
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Because not enough voters have the time/resources/inclination to make it an issue that can vote in the amount of politicians needed to make it right. All the higher ups get plausible deniability and the headlines in the news, and nine out of ten people’s eyes will glaze over by the time you say conflict of interest.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  No, look - I get the general idea why the world isn’t the way it could have been. I am asking “what is the logical reasoning behind the decision of the judge in this particular scenario”. The situation may be unfair, but why specifically?
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    The difficulty in being able to assign a numerical value to damages is a big problem, as it allows the defense to contest the claims of the plaintiff very easily. At that point, it just becomes a situation of the plaintiff (and their lawyers) figuring out the likelihood of winning the case multiplied by the winnings, and it wouldn't make sense for the plaintiffs to keep arguing for the maximum (or real value) of damages since it's not "provable" and then you're stuck in appeals and whatnot. I wouldn't think the judge in the case can actually do anything in cases where the plaintiffs and defendants reach an accord, or at least the corruption needs to rise to a level higher than what is seen in this case.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      I’ve said this before, but assigning monetary damages is easy: poll Equifax’s attorneys (and maybe their execs) about how much it would take for them to be willing to release their entire Equifax file into the public record. Then, actually do it — introduce their entire credit files into the case record. Take the average amount from the poll, multiply by the number of people affected, and there’s your number.
dehrmann 7y ago
It's actually pretty close to racketeering because they're selling a solution to a problem they created.

Why is that legal?

__s 7y ago

Because software is handled with leaky metaphors Imagine a defective physical product went out. Then the company sent out repair kits. Those kits have a real cost to produce/ship/etc It would still seem kind of silly that a company is sending me repair kits instead of money I can choose whether to invest in repairs or not, but so it goes

heavenlyblue 7y ago
OK, I can see the metaphor now. I would presume the law is a bit better in the physical world as making repair kits directly impacts your balance that you can’t use for anything else, at the least.
cco 7y ago
I think your analogy misses the key point, that is in your analogy the company that sent out the defective physical product is now "fined" by the US government and forced to send out repair kits to those that request them; when a user requests this repair kit the company charges the fund created by the "fine" $813 to send out the repair kit even though the repair kit cost is pennies. It's racketeering.
pmiller2 7y ago
Your analogy is stillborn. I never ordered the product!

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Because not enough voters have the time/resources/inclination to make it an issue that can vote in the amount of politicians needed to make it right. All the higher ups get plausible deniability and the headlines in the news, and nine out of ten people’s eyes will glaze over by the time you say conflict of interest.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
No, look - I get the general idea why the world isn’t the way it could have been. I am asking “what is the logical reasoning behind the decision of the judge in this particular scenario”. The situation may be unfair, but why specifically?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The difficulty in being able to assign a numerical value to damages is a big problem, as it allows the defense to contest the claims of the plaintiff very easily. At that point, it just becomes a situation of the plaintiff (and their lawyers) figuring out the likelihood of winning the case multiplied by the winnings, and it wouldn't make sense for the plaintiffs to keep arguing for the maximum (or real value) of damages since it's not "provable" and then you're stuck in appeals and whatnot. I wouldn't think the judge in the case can actually do anything in cases where the plaintiffs and defendants reach an accord, or at least the corruption needs to rise to a level higher than what is seen in this case.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    I’ve said this before, but assigning monetary damages is easy: poll Equifax’s attorneys (and maybe their execs) about how much it would take for them to be willing to release their entire Equifax file into the public record. Then, actually do it — introduce their entire credit files into the case record. Take the average amount from the poll, multiply by the number of people affected, and there’s your number.

dehrmann 7y ago

It's actually pretty close to racketeering because they're selling a solution to a problem they created.