5 ms·

It's more complex and doesn't always go like that. If X' is a superior product objectively, then company B can find investors willing to back them and take on

It's more complex and doesn't always go like that. If X' is a superior product objectively, then company B can find investors willing to back them and take on company A. Company A could itself be an investor in company B

Zenst 5y ago
Yes way more complex as a recent article outlined regarding a very relevant story. "$35BN Match Group file multiple lawsuits against muzmatch following repeated failed acquisition offers" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29860034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29860034
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  shrug I'm sure you can find much more examples of companies not behaving this way. This kind of behavior can be lessened with laws and penalties against frivolous lawsuits. It's hardly an indictment against the system itself.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    On the other hand there are countless examples of similar strong-arming tactics that never see daylight. For example, negotiations with supermarket chains to get a spot on the shelf (and which spot), what the chain's cut will be, or which tools a car repair shop is allowed to use to be "licensed" to work on some brand (hint: it's the brand's own overpriced line of tools). "Lets provide the better product/service at a lower price" is, by far, not the most common business tactic.
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      Indeed, over-regulation is cronyism
  - frank_nitti 5y ago
    How would that play out? Company B lobbies Washington to legislate/prosecute frivolous lawsuits like those brought by Company A against its competitors? Seems to me any resources B can muster for such an endeavor would be dwarfed by A’s resources…
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      Why would it have to rise to the level of lobbying in Washington? That's not how the majority of laws get enforced. It would be more like: - Law for frivolous lawsuits created with criteria - Company A engages in said behavior - Company B files motion to dismiss based on said criteria - Judge agrees and dismisses lawsuit, and warns of contempt if the behavior continues

Zenst 5y ago

Yes way more complex as a recent article outlined regarding a very relevant story. "$35BN Match Group file multiple lawsuits against muzmatch following repeated failed acquisition offers" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29860034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29860034

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dbsmith83 5y ago
shrug I'm sure you can find much more examples of companies not behaving this way. This kind of behavior can be lessened with laws and penalties against frivolous lawsuits. It's hardly an indictment against the system itself.
- jevoten 5y ago
  On the other hand there are countless examples of similar strong-arming tactics that never see daylight. For example, negotiations with supermarket chains to get a spot on the shelf (and which spot), what the chain's cut will be, or which tools a car repair shop is allowed to use to be "licensed" to work on some brand (hint: it's the brand's own overpriced line of tools). "Lets provide the better product/service at a lower price" is, by far, not the most common business tactic.
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    Indeed, over-regulation is cronyism
- frank_nitti 5y ago
  How would that play out? Company B lobbies Washington to legislate/prosecute frivolous lawsuits like those brought by Company A against its competitors? Seems to me any resources B can muster for such an endeavor would be dwarfed by A’s resources…
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    Why would it have to rise to the level of lobbying in Washington? That's not how the majority of laws get enforced. It would be more like: - Law for frivolous lawsuits created with criteria - Company A engages in said behavior - Company B files motion to dismiss based on said criteria - Judge agrees and dismisses lawsuit, and warns of contempt if the behavior continues