4 ms·
> “The startups that paid to play, and possibly many others, believed this was how Netflix did business,” the prosecutors said. You're actually accusing the pr
by bpodgursky 5y ago
> “The startups that paid to play, and possibly many others, believed this was how Netflix did business,” the prosecutors said.
You're actually accusing the prosecutor of getting it wrong... which seems a bit arrogant.
- splistud 5y agoBelieving that a corp you do business with does things illegally doesn't relieve you from some duty to report it (especially if you become involved). Very likely, providing evidence relieved them from being prosecuted.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoThe prosecutors were making a case against Kail. If they make it seem like the startups were complicit or even proposed it, that would hurt their case against Kail. These arrangements were obviously illegal, and it beggars belief to suggest that so many startups were unaware of that.
- bpodgursky 5y agoIf complicity weakens the case against Kail, why are you suggesting the startups did something illegal? You can't have it both ways. The complicity is either a crime alongside Kail's crime (and completely independent), or it isn't.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoThey both did something illegal. Did something I say make you believe I think otherwise? The prosecutors chose to go after Kail because he is easier to nail. They get to charge him separately for the fraud he committed with each startup, so it's more likely that at least one will stick. The startups are required to help the DOJ build a case and get a warning that they won't get off so easily if they're caught again. Since they weren't charged this time, these cases are fair game to litigate in the future together with any new charges. What these startups did is obviously illegal, and they and the DOJ are obviously well aware.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]