3 ms·

Sure, but that doesn’t mean your lawyer doesn’t still try and make a case in your defense if you want one. That’s what lawyers do… Think about it, no one real

Sure, but that doesn’t mean your lawyer doesn’t still try and make a case in your defense if you want one. That’s what lawyers do… Think about it, no one really got hurt here. Musk ultimately buys Twitter for the agreed price, no shareholder loses. Musk assumes the cost for Twitter’s lawyers for the lawsuit to preserve the deal by buying Twitter and Musk paid his lawyers to defend it. It was chump change to a billionaire to take a long shot bet to maybe make the deal a little sweeter and it didn’t work. Oh well, Musk has not lost any more than he was originally willing to risk.

pvg 4y ago
Think about it, no one really got hurt here. That's not what twitter thinks and it's right in their original lawsuit: 155. Twitter has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of defendants’ breaches.
- wartijn_ 4y ago
  But if that harm manifested itself in a lower value of Twitter it will be repaired, when Musk buys the company for the price they agreed on. If that harm is reflected in something else (the reputation of Twitter maybe?) that is damage Musk did to his own company. So maybe whoever co-invested with Musk got hurt a bit, but they’ll still get whatever part of Twitter they wanted, for the price they agreed on.
9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
TFW when you start justifying a billionaire's unethical (and possibly criminal!) behaviour by saying 'well, no one was *physically* hurt!'
- wartijn_ 4y ago
  Their point is that no one was financially hurt. Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about people getting physically hurt, unless I’m missing something.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for?
    - wartijn_ 4y ago
      I think you meant to reply to my other comment[0], since that's where I did make that argument? But as to your questions: > You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Fair point, I imagine the last couple of months have not been great for many Twitter-employees. > Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for? As far as I know the shareholders don't directly pay for the lawyers, that money comes from some financial reserve Twitter has. In normal circumstances massive legal costs can reduce the value of a company, but in this case the shareholders will be able to sell each share for the same $54.20 as before the lawsuit. If the company becomes less valuable because of this, that's the problem of the next owner of the company. Since Musk will end up owning Twitter, he'll end up paying for the lawyers on both sides of this suit. Or am I missing something? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570
      - llamaimperative 4y ago
        Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. So no biggie, right?! Time value of money is a thing. Time under stress is also a real thing, and Musk seems to relish in putting other people in it.
        wartijn_ 4y ago
        > Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. Only if you take really specific statements and turn them into a general theory. But this discussion isn't about theoretical thefts and deathbeds, it's one about the reality that Musk is buying Twitter[0]. There is no "army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for", because the current shareholders won't have to pay anything. Twitter is paying for the lawyers and Musk will and up owning Twitter. That's not some moral judgement, it's a description of the facts. Nothing I've said so far is in defense of what Musk does. To be clear: I behavior is justifiable. He created this mess by making really dumb decisions and then trying everything to get out of this situation by not caring about anything or anyone but himself. It has been a huge waste of time and money. But as it turns out, Musk will be the one owning a company he doesn't want, and as that owner he'll be the one paying for that wasted time and for the costs made by both parties of the lawsuit. It just seems that the person that's by far the most hurt by Musks actions is Musk himself. [0]In this entire comment I'm assuming the deal actually goes through.
shapefrog 4y ago
> Oh well, Musk has not lost any more than he was originally willing to risk He risked his dignity and he lost it.
- krapp 4y ago
  People with Musk's wealth can't lose dignity in any meaningful way, because social consequences don't apply to them. He's going to remain one of the richest, most powerful and influential people on the planet regardless of what he says or does.

pvg 4y ago

Think about it, no one really got hurt here. That's not what twitter thinks and it's right in their original lawsuit: 155. Twitter has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of defendants’ breaches.

wartijn_ 4y ago
But if that harm manifested itself in a lower value of Twitter it will be repaired, when Musk buys the company for the price they agreed on. If that harm is reflected in something else (the reputation of Twitter maybe?) that is damage Musk did to his own company. So maybe whoever co-invested with Musk got hurt a bit, but they’ll still get whatever part of Twitter they wanted, for the price they agreed on.

9935c101ab17a66 4y ago

TFW when you start justifying a billionaire's unethical (and possibly criminal!) behaviour by saying 'well, no one was *physically* hurt!'

wartijn_ 4y ago
Their point is that no one was financially hurt. Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about people getting physically hurt, unless I’m missing something.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for?
  - wartijn_ 4y ago
    I think you meant to reply to my other comment[0], since that's where I did make that argument? But as to your questions: > You don’t think anyone was hurt by the absolutely enormous amount of stress he chose to create? Fair point, I imagine the last couple of months have not been great for many Twitter-employees. > Or the army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for? As far as I know the shareholders don't directly pay for the lawyers, that money comes from some financial reserve Twitter has. In normal circumstances massive legal costs can reduce the value of a company, but in this case the shareholders will be able to sell each share for the same $54.20 as before the lawsuit. If the company becomes less valuable because of this, that's the problem of the next owner of the company. Since Musk will end up owning Twitter, he'll end up paying for the lawyers on both sides of this suit. Or am I missing something? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33092570
    - llamaimperative 4y ago
      Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. So no biggie, right?! Time value of money is a thing. Time under stress is also a real thing, and Musk seems to relish in putting other people in it.
      - wartijn_ 4y ago
        > Under this theory of damage, there’s no such thing as theft until you die because there’s always a chance you’ll get your belongings back on your deathbed. Only if you take really specific statements and turn them into a general theory. But this discussion isn't about theoretical thefts and deathbeds, it's one about the reality that Musk is buying Twitter[0]. There is no "army of lawyers that Twitter shareholders had to pay for", because the current shareholders won't have to pay anything. Twitter is paying for the lawyers and Musk will and up owning Twitter. That's not some moral judgement, it's a description of the facts. Nothing I've said so far is in defense of what Musk does. To be clear: I behavior is justifiable. He created this mess by making really dumb decisions and then trying everything to get out of this situation by not caring about anything or anyone but himself. It has been a huge waste of time and money. But as it turns out, Musk will be the one owning a company he doesn't want, and as that owner he'll be the one paying for that wasted time and for the costs made by both parties of the lawsuit. It just seems that the person that's by far the most hurt by Musks actions is Musk himself. [0]In this entire comment I'm assuming the deal actually goes through.

shapefrog 4y ago

> Oh well, Musk has not lost any more than he was originally willing to risk He risked his dignity and he lost it.

krapp 4y ago
People with Musk's wealth can't lose dignity in any meaningful way, because social consequences don't apply to them. He's going to remain one of the richest, most powerful and influential people on the planet regardless of what he says or does.