4 ms·

There's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. Then the courts decide if it's good enough.

by psv1 7y ago

crystaldev 7y ago
So you mean zero, right? There's no evidence benchmark for a party taking legal action in a civil matter. Saying "you'll be hearing from my lawyer" doesn't strengthen an argument.
- psv1 7y ago
  I don't know what evidence they have. Not sure why you decided that it's zero.
  - crystaldev 7y ago
    I decided based on your statement: > There's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. The "enough" here is zero. They may have more, but you argued for at least zero.
    - psv1 7y ago
      > The "enough" here is zero. No, it isn't. Legally it might be zero, but multi-billion dollar companies don't enter legal processes that last years and cost them millions just for the sake of it. This isn't the same as "you'll hear from my lawyer".
      - castlecrasher2 7y ago
        >This isn't the same as "you'll hear from my lawyer". How isn't it? You keep speaking authoritatively on this; where is your evidence? And any derivation of "Amazon is a big company and they don't enter lawsuits they won't win" isn't evidence.
        psv1 7y ago
        First, > "Amazon is a big company and they don't enter lawsuits they won't win" this simply isn't what I said. Second - my evidence? We're not in court and I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I just explained my thought process - if you disagree or if you think there's a flaw in my reasoning, you can point it out. Or you can move on and ignore what I've written.
        castlecrasher2 7y ago
        >Or you can move on and ignore what I've written. I tend to have discussions with people online to understand their point of view. Will you indulge me and share why you think there's merit to the case or is this thread just another pair of soapboxes where we each squawk from our megaphones and leave without mutual understanding?
        mcqueenjordan 7y ago
        [Disclaimer: I currently work for AWS.] Let's establish as true a pretty important prior: 1. Anyone who has rightfully-obtained access or knowledge of any such evidence is most likely obligated (legally or otherwise) to keep it secret. Given #1, asking for evidence isn't the most salient question. Since it can really only be speculation, the most interesting questions probably start with "Given what we know, what is most likely?"
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Presumably Amazon performs some sort of cost/benefit analysis before suing the federal government.
- xoa 7y ago
  >So you mean zero, right? There's no evidence benchmark for a party taking legal action in a civil matter. Saying "you'll be hearing from my lawyer" doesn't strengthen an argument. In the United States and other common-law legal systems (I don't know about other codes at all) there is the concept of "summary judgement", which would absolutely be invoked if Amazon presented no "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" [1]. A summary judgement can be sought with full evidentiary presentation. Amazon's evidence may well be weak, but if they presented "zero evidence" the case wouldn't go to trial at all. It's perfectly reasonable to expect and assume a certain basic level of competence from an established megacorp's legal team. They will have filed a cause of action to which they could at least potentially be entitled relief and assertions of material facts that a jury could at least potentially be convinced by. ---- 1: "Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure", https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56
Rebelgecko 7y ago
It's a $10 billion contract. It makes sense for Amazon (financially) to protest even if they think there's only a 1% chance that they eventually win.

There's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. Then the courts decide if it's good enough.

by psv1 7y ago

There's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. Then the courts decide if it's good enough.

So you mean zero, right? There's no evidence benchmark for a party taking legal action in a civil matter. Saying "you'll be hearing from my lawyer" doesn't strengthen an argument.

psv1 7y ago
I don't know what evidence they have. Not sure why you decided that it's zero.
- crystaldev 7y ago
  I decided based on your statement: > There's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. The "enough" here is zero. They may have more, but you argued for at least zero.
  - psv1 7y ago
    > The "enough" here is zero. No, it isn't. Legally it might be zero, but multi-billion dollar companies don't enter legal processes that last years and cost them millions just for the sake of it. This isn't the same as "you'll hear from my lawyer".
    - castlecrasher2 7y ago
      >This isn't the same as "you'll hear from my lawyer". How isn't it? You keep speaking authoritatively on this; where is your evidence? And any derivation of "Amazon is a big company and they don't enter lawsuits they won't win" isn't evidence.
      - psv1 7y ago
        First, > "Amazon is a big company and they don't enter lawsuits they won't win" this simply isn't what I said. Second - my evidence? We're not in court and I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I just explained my thought process - if you disagree or if you think there's a flaw in my reasoning, you can point it out. Or you can move on and ignore what I've written.
        castlecrasher2 7y ago
        >Or you can move on and ignore what I've written. I tend to have discussions with people online to understand their point of view. Will you indulge me and share why you think there's merit to the case or is this thread just another pair of soapboxes where we each squawk from our megaphones and leave without mutual understanding?
        mcqueenjordan 7y ago
        [Disclaimer: I currently work for AWS.] Let's establish as true a pretty important prior: 1. Anyone who has rightfully-obtained access or knowledge of any such evidence is most likely obligated (legally or otherwise) to keep it secret. Given #1, asking for evidence isn't the most salient question. Since it can really only be speculation, the most interesting questions probably start with "Given what we know, what is most likely?"
snowwrestler 7y ago
Presumably Amazon performs some sort of cost/benefit analysis before suing the federal government.
xoa 7y ago
>So you mean zero, right? There's no evidence benchmark for a party taking legal action in a civil matter. Saying "you'll be hearing from my lawyer" doesn't strengthen an argument. In the United States and other common-law legal systems (I don't know about other codes at all) there is the concept of "summary judgement", which would absolutely be invoked if Amazon presented no "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" [1]. A summary judgement can be sought with full evidentiary presentation. Amazon's evidence may well be weak, but if they presented "zero evidence" the case wouldn't go to trial at all. It's perfectly reasonable to expect and assume a certain basic level of competence from an established megacorp's legal team. They will have filed a cause of action to which they could at least potentially be entitled relief and assertions of material facts that a jury could at least potentially be convinced by. ---- 1: "Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure", https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Rebelgecko 7y ago

It's a $10 billion contract. It makes sense for Amazon (financially) to protest even if they think there's only a 1% chance that they eventually win.