4 ms·

The problem is with the order amount. $99 is a lot of money (Google pegs it at 7.4k INR) and anyways its a large sum even for an American with low income. The p

The problem is with the order amount. $99 is a lot of money (Google pegs it at 7.4k INR) and anyways its a large sum even for an American with low income. The problem with pre-orders is the amount of money that gets locked. The government has to enforce its regulations via the proper channels and doesn't want to be in a position where they ask Space-X to refund the money whereupon they might sue and cause trouble at international levels. Informing the people that they haven't received their license is okay I think as it gives the government breathing room to have the same rules for everyone since they can always justify by saying "we told you so" and I think that's fair. Secondly, the Indian government is under no obligation to deal with free-trade nonsense here. Space-X cannot and does not employ any Indians, so giving them an operators license and access to consumer base without actually being able to create jobs or deep expertise locally makes zero sense. In such deals, in the end, the only technological expertise that flows is crappy admin jobs and frankly no country should take such a deal.

josephcsible 5y ago
The money isn't "locked" if the deposit is fully refundable at any time, with the only thing you lose being your place in line. And how is free trade "nonsense"? Do you think protectionism is a good thing?
- pm90 5y ago
  What recourse do Indian citizens have if SpaceX decides to not honor its agreement? They cannot be sued in Indian courts. It’s entirely justified to be extremely skeptical. > Do you think protectionism is a good thing? Yes, absolutely it is.
  - gaadd33 5y ago
    Why can't SpaceX be sued in Indian courts? Does India have a law prohibiting that? In America you can sue a foreign entity and if it's found that the court has jurisdiction and you win then you can get a judgement against any assets the entity has in the country. I believe this has been used to seize a skyscraper in Manhattan owned by Iran among other things in the past.
    - pm90 5y ago
      US courts do not have jurisdiction outside the US; the only reason their orders are obeyed outside the US is because of the power of the US Government; if a foreign Government refuses and the USG wants to compel them, they can use diplomatic or other ways (e.g via sanctions) to make them. At the least, it can be used as leverage when bargaining for other things. As you can see, it just doesn't work the other way around.
      - gaadd33 5y ago
        They aren't extending their jurisdiction, perhaps you misunderstood my point. If the company has assets inside the jurisdiction of the country, then the country can seize those assets, regardless of the size of the country. You can see this in many instances across legal systems, I'm not sure if that's a standard feature of all legal frameworks but I think almost all that are based on English common law can do that. If Indian courts aren't able to seize assets/impose judgements inside their jurisdiction, then yeah customers wouldn't have much recourse, I'm not sure what recourse customers generally have in that case then.
      - skissane 5y ago
        I think you are confusing jurisdiction with enforceability of judgements. Jurisdiction is about whether the court is allowed to hear the case to begin with. Enforceability of the judgement is about whether anyone has the power to do anything in practice if the defendant decides to ignore a judgement against them. Just because the judgement you won turns out to be unenforceable in practice didn't mean the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case to begin with. Jurisdiction and enforceability are separate concepts. Sometimes, the answer to the question of enforceability does not become clear until long after the judgement itself. US courts (both federal and state) have the power to enforce foreign court judgements; I'm not aware of any rule which automatically excludes Indian courts from that. Whether they will do so in any particular case is a very complex legal question. In theory, the question of whether a US court will enforce a foreign judgement is based on legal considerations not political ones. Of course, in practice, judges are political animals and they will take political considerations into account; but, when they do that, they generally try to explain what they are doing as applications of apolitical legal principles, no judge wants to be openly seen to be deciding a case politically even if many suspect that to be their true motivation.
- thecleaner 5y ago
  The financial argument is valid but nobody wants to pay money for a service they would want and then receive an email saying we can't provide it because "Indian goverment deemed it so". One scenario is the government doesn't communicate with the public and then Space-X doesn't get its license. Telling people to be cautious is okay. And anyways if Space-X has enough capacity, pre-orders shouldn't matter. There's nuance here and sound policy lies on a spectrum between fully free trade and protectionism. Free trade in services without free movement of people is nonsense in my opinion. It almost always benefits the incumbent.

josephcsible 5y ago

The money isn't "locked" if the deposit is fully refundable at any time, with the only thing you lose being your place in line. And how is free trade "nonsense"? Do you think protectionism is a good thing?

pm90 5y ago
What recourse do Indian citizens have if SpaceX decides to not honor its agreement? They cannot be sued in Indian courts. It’s entirely justified to be extremely skeptical. > Do you think protectionism is a good thing? Yes, absolutely it is.
- gaadd33 5y ago
  Why can't SpaceX be sued in Indian courts? Does India have a law prohibiting that? In America you can sue a foreign entity and if it's found that the court has jurisdiction and you win then you can get a judgement against any assets the entity has in the country. I believe this has been used to seize a skyscraper in Manhattan owned by Iran among other things in the past.
  - pm90 5y ago
    US courts do not have jurisdiction outside the US; the only reason their orders are obeyed outside the US is because of the power of the US Government; if a foreign Government refuses and the USG wants to compel them, they can use diplomatic or other ways (e.g via sanctions) to make them. At the least, it can be used as leverage when bargaining for other things. As you can see, it just doesn't work the other way around.
    - gaadd33 5y ago
      They aren't extending their jurisdiction, perhaps you misunderstood my point. If the company has assets inside the jurisdiction of the country, then the country can seize those assets, regardless of the size of the country. You can see this in many instances across legal systems, I'm not sure if that's a standard feature of all legal frameworks but I think almost all that are based on English common law can do that. If Indian courts aren't able to seize assets/impose judgements inside their jurisdiction, then yeah customers wouldn't have much recourse, I'm not sure what recourse customers generally have in that case then.
    - skissane 5y ago
      I think you are confusing jurisdiction with enforceability of judgements. Jurisdiction is about whether the court is allowed to hear the case to begin with. Enforceability of the judgement is about whether anyone has the power to do anything in practice if the defendant decides to ignore a judgement against them. Just because the judgement you won turns out to be unenforceable in practice didn't mean the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case to begin with. Jurisdiction and enforceability are separate concepts. Sometimes, the answer to the question of enforceability does not become clear until long after the judgement itself. US courts (both federal and state) have the power to enforce foreign court judgements; I'm not aware of any rule which automatically excludes Indian courts from that. Whether they will do so in any particular case is a very complex legal question. In theory, the question of whether a US court will enforce a foreign judgement is based on legal considerations not political ones. Of course, in practice, judges are political animals and they will take political considerations into account; but, when they do that, they generally try to explain what they are doing as applications of apolitical legal principles, no judge wants to be openly seen to be deciding a case politically even if many suspect that to be their true motivation.
thecleaner 5y ago
The financial argument is valid but nobody wants to pay money for a service they would want and then receive an email saying we can't provide it because "Indian goverment deemed it so". One scenario is the government doesn't communicate with the public and then Space-X doesn't get its license. Telling people to be cautious is okay. And anyways if Space-X has enough capacity, pre-orders shouldn't matter. There's nuance here and sound policy lies on a spectrum between fully free trade and protectionism. Free trade in services without free movement of people is nonsense in my opinion. It almost always benefits the incumbent.