5 ms·

I feel that the law needs to have more customization due to power imbalances than it does today. Google cloning a startup's product should be less legal than a

by zweep 7y ago

I feel that the law needs to have more customization due to power imbalances than it does today. Google cloning a startup's product should be less legal than a startup cloning Google's. A low-level employee should have few restrictions on planning a startup while employed, but a senior exec making millions has more power to stay unemployed for some time, a greater insight into his employer's business, etc, and perhaps should have more restrictions on the same. But business law doesn't usually have any such calibration for situation, the way that criminal law does where they take into account who you are and what situation you are in to determine a punishment.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hyperpape 7y ago
Your idea about Google probably is hard to put into law, but in the same way that the law requires unemployment benefits for workers below a certain wage, it could (and I'd argue should) ban noncompetes for workers below a certain salary. Not a lawyer, but I do not think that would raise constitutional or fairness issues.
brobdingnagians 7y ago
I see what you mean, but that would kind of change "equal before the law". Laws should apply equally to everyone. Otherwise, you would have the same kind of twisted lobbying as we have now, but it would be on an uneven field, and the people with money would eventually turn the situation to _their_ advantage. At least if everyone's equal before the law, you can appeal to everyone in trying to repeal or change laws.
- aplummer 7y ago
  Classes of people can be treated differently and be equal before the law. Any person who is a police officer has X different rules for example.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Laws should apply equally to everyone. Two things stand out. First is the quote: >The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Second, the law including power imbalances as a reason to treat people different is already considered equality under the law. Consider we already have laws that treat certain groups of people different because of power imbalances. For example consider minors entering into contracts and how the law enforces such contracts. The law also taxes people differently. Not just for income, but also family status. There are differences in how the law handles certain matters between two people when they are a spouse compared to when they are not (such as property transfers and social security). The law also discriminates plenty based on age. For example, some people are allowed to withdraw funds from their tax deferred accounts while others are not, all because of differences in age (or in rarer cases other special circumstances). If all of these are considered equal because the way the rules apply mean that you qualify when you are of the appropriate age/married/meet the specified life circumstances, then the purposed notion would also be equal as the law would equally apply to all when they are on the specific side of the power imbalance. To set the standard the law must be equal to everyone would require re-evaluating much of the existing law and would fundamentally change quite a few facets of society.
- kelnos 7y ago
  That's the difference between equality and equity. I'd argue that people push too much for the former when the latter is sometimes more appropriate. I'd say this is one of those times. Since we're talking about the idea of different treatment under the law for rich vs. poor (well, "comfortable", in this case), tax law in the US is a fine example: the more income you make, the higher your marginal earnings are taxed.
  - jlarocco 7y ago
    > Since we're talking about the idea of different treatment under the law for rich vs. poor (well, "comfortable", in this case), tax law in the US is a fine example: the more income you make, the higher your marginal earnings are taxed. That's technically true, but misleading. The long term capital gains tax, which is what most high income earners end up paying, maxes out at 20%, which is lower than most of the regular income tax brackets. It's the reason some CEOs opt for a $1 salary.
    - pb7 7y ago
      Capital gains tax generally only applies to assets that have been previously taxed as income. Equity grants whether to CEOs or normal employees alike are taxed as income at vesting time with subsequent gains taxed as capital gains. Capital gains taxes apply to both the rich and the poor, with the latter paying a whopping 0%.
      - mamon 7y ago
        >> Capital gains tax generally only applies to assets that have been previously taxed as income No, it does not apply to previously taxed assets at all, only to an additional income you made from those assets. Equity grant is taxed when you excercise your stock options based on their current value. If the stock price goes up later, capital gains tax is only applied to the amount you gained, not the whole sum.
        pb7 7y ago
        >No, it does not apply to previously taxed assets at all, only to an additional income you made from those assets. I would call that applying to previously taxed assets. Unvested RSUs (read: not taxed yet) that gain considerably over many years prior to vesting are still wholly taxed as regular income. Without additional income, there is nothing to be taxed therefore there shouldn't be any confusion as to what I mean by that. Stock options are only one type of equity grants, the other being RSUs which have a cost basis of $0 and therefore the entire sum is subject to income taxes at vesting. Exercising stock options is not free, you must pay to do so at the exercise price which is done using post-tax cash, which again, had to have been taxed as regular income at some point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Kinrany 7y ago
  This seems similar to tax brackets and anti-monopoly laws: the bigger the company, the more responsibilities it has.
riyadparvez 7y ago
> Google cloning a startup's product should be less legal than a startup cloning Google's. Genuine question. The article is about Apple. Why did you use Google as an example instead of Apple? Is there anything specific to Google that warrants using Google as an example instead of Apple, which is the company in question?
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  This is HN. Every corporate example should start with google. Or I think they dislike how google freemium model from ad revenue to push services has butchered many startups which would have been big today while apple is more secluded. Think of gmail, chrome, gmaps, youtube, android, analytics, google cards, snippets etc. Only recently their revenue has more diversification than ads - at 89%.

by zweep 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hyperpape 7y ago

Your idea about Google probably is hard to put into law, but in the same way that the law requires unemployment benefits for workers below a certain wage, it could (and I'd argue should) ban noncompetes for workers below a certain salary. Not a lawyer, but I do not think that would raise constitutional or fairness issues.

brobdingnagians 7y ago

I see what you mean, but that would kind of change "equal before the law". Laws should apply equally to everyone. Otherwise, you would have the same kind of twisted lobbying as we have now, but it would be on an uneven field, and the people with money would eventually turn the situation to _their_ advantage. At least if everyone's equal before the law, you can appeal to everyone in trying to repeal or change laws.

aplummer 7y ago
Classes of people can be treated differently and be equal before the law. Any person who is a police officer has X different rules for example.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Laws should apply equally to everyone. Two things stand out. First is the quote: >The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Second, the law including power imbalances as a reason to treat people different is already considered equality under the law. Consider we already have laws that treat certain groups of people different because of power imbalances. For example consider minors entering into contracts and how the law enforces such contracts. The law also taxes people differently. Not just for income, but also family status. There are differences in how the law handles certain matters between two people when they are a spouse compared to when they are not (such as property transfers and social security). The law also discriminates plenty based on age. For example, some people are allowed to withdraw funds from their tax deferred accounts while others are not, all because of differences in age (or in rarer cases other special circumstances). If all of these are considered equal because the way the rules apply mean that you qualify when you are of the appropriate age/married/meet the specified life circumstances, then the purposed notion would also be equal as the law would equally apply to all when they are on the specific side of the power imbalance. To set the standard the law must be equal to everyone would require re-evaluating much of the existing law and would fundamentally change quite a few facets of society.
kelnos 7y ago
That's the difference between equality and equity. I'd argue that people push too much for the former when the latter is sometimes more appropriate. I'd say this is one of those times. Since we're talking about the idea of different treatment under the law for rich vs. poor (well, "comfortable", in this case), tax law in the US is a fine example: the more income you make, the higher your marginal earnings are taxed.
- jlarocco 7y ago
  > Since we're talking about the idea of different treatment under the law for rich vs. poor (well, "comfortable", in this case), tax law in the US is a fine example: the more income you make, the higher your marginal earnings are taxed. That's technically true, but misleading. The long term capital gains tax, which is what most high income earners end up paying, maxes out at 20%, which is lower than most of the regular income tax brackets. It's the reason some CEOs opt for a $1 salary.
  - pb7 7y ago
    Capital gains tax generally only applies to assets that have been previously taxed as income. Equity grants whether to CEOs or normal employees alike are taxed as income at vesting time with subsequent gains taxed as capital gains. Capital gains taxes apply to both the rich and the poor, with the latter paying a whopping 0%.
    - mamon 7y ago
      >> Capital gains tax generally only applies to assets that have been previously taxed as income No, it does not apply to previously taxed assets at all, only to an additional income you made from those assets. Equity grant is taxed when you excercise your stock options based on their current value. If the stock price goes up later, capital gains tax is only applied to the amount you gained, not the whole sum.
      - pb7 7y ago
        >No, it does not apply to previously taxed assets at all, only to an additional income you made from those assets. I would call that applying to previously taxed assets. Unvested RSUs (read: not taxed yet) that gain considerably over many years prior to vesting are still wholly taxed as regular income. Without additional income, there is nothing to be taxed therefore there shouldn't be any confusion as to what I mean by that. Stock options are only one type of equity grants, the other being RSUs which have a cost basis of $0 and therefore the entire sum is subject to income taxes at vesting. Exercising stock options is not free, you must pay to do so at the exercise price which is done using post-tax cash, which again, had to have been taxed as regular income at some point.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Kinrany 7y ago
This seems similar to tax brackets and anti-monopoly laws: the bigger the company, the more responsibilities it has.

riyadparvez 7y ago

> Google cloning a startup's product should be less legal than a startup cloning Google's. Genuine question. The article is about Apple. Why did you use Google as an example instead of Apple? Is there anything specific to Google that warrants using Google as an example instead of Apple, which is the company in question?

thrwaway69 7y ago
This is HN. Every corporate example should start with google. Or I think they dislike how google freemium model from ad revenue to push services has butchered many startups which would have been big today while apple is more secluded. Think of gmail, chrome, gmaps, youtube, android, analytics, google cards, snippets etc. Only recently their revenue has more diversification than ads - at 89%.