6 ms·

That's my takeaway as well. What's yours?

dcgudeman 5y ago
An individual committed a sophisticated crime against a business by recruiting employees of that business. He did so at great cost to that business, while knowing it was a crime, to enrich himself. He got caught and prosecuted. How do you get "capitalist dystopian hellscape" from that?
- unstatedAnswers 5y ago
  Disagreement with the premise of the law and/or judgement, on the basis of being overwhelmingly unfair to those without capital. And this case is just part of a trend.
  - dcgudeman 5y ago
    unfair in what way? There is no mention that the people getting out of paying their contracts were poor in the article. Even if they were, what should be done about it? Should people creating smart phones not be compensated for the work that they do? Or the employees of companies involved with delivering telecom services? What is "fair" in your mind? Engineers, manufacturers and customer service people being paid below market rate to deliver premium products like smartphones to people without capital? What's wrong with people purchasing devices in their price range? There are smartphones on the market unlocked for $60.
    - NotPractical 5y ago
      Carrier locking should be illegal. It's anti-choice and anti-competitive. Ideally, everyone would buy phones directly from manufacturers or from retailers. Carriers should be free to sell phones, even at a markup, to customers who don't know any better, but they at least shouldn't be allowed to carrier lock these phones, so the customer is free to move to another carrier at any time. You could argue that the customer is "free" to simply purchase an unlocked phone, but we shouldn't expect the average consumer to be knowledgeable enough to even know what a carrier lock is in the first place. The people having their phones unlocked early through this service probably didn't even realize they were buying a locked phone when they bought it. All they wished to do is free their phone of this arbitrary carrier restriction, so they could have the freedom to switch to another carrier. "Freedom" as in the choice between AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint... oh wait, scratch that last one.

An individual committed a sophisticated crime against a business by recruiting employees of that business. He did so at great cost to that business, while knowing it was a crime, to enrich himself. He got caught and prosecuted. How do you get "capitalist dystopian hellscape" from that?

unstatedAnswers 5y ago
Disagreement with the premise of the law and/or judgement, on the basis of being overwhelmingly unfair to those without capital. And this case is just part of a trend.
- dcgudeman 5y ago
  unfair in what way? There is no mention that the people getting out of paying their contracts were poor in the article. Even if they were, what should be done about it? Should people creating smart phones not be compensated for the work that they do? Or the employees of companies involved with delivering telecom services? What is "fair" in your mind? Engineers, manufacturers and customer service people being paid below market rate to deliver premium products like smartphones to people without capital? What's wrong with people purchasing devices in their price range? There are smartphones on the market unlocked for $60.
  - NotPractical 5y ago
    Carrier locking should be illegal. It's anti-choice and anti-competitive. Ideally, everyone would buy phones directly from manufacturers or from retailers. Carriers should be free to sell phones, even at a markup, to customers who don't know any better, but they at least shouldn't be allowed to carrier lock these phones, so the customer is free to move to another carrier at any time. You could argue that the customer is "free" to simply purchase an unlocked phone, but we shouldn't expect the average consumer to be knowledgeable enough to even know what a carrier lock is in the first place. The people having their phones unlocked early through this service probably didn't even realize they were buying a locked phone when they bought it. All they wished to do is free their phone of this arbitrary carrier restriction, so they could have the freedom to switch to another carrier. "Freedom" as in the choice between AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint... oh wait, scratch that last one.