9 ms·

Surely if Meta need another company to help them prove something, Meta should have to compensate them. Sure, the government should be able to COMMAND a company

by imdsm 4y ago

Surely if Meta need another company to help them prove something, Meta should have to compensate them. Sure, the government should be able to COMMAND a company to appear, but for one legal entity to COMMAND another legal entity to perform work and make an appearance at a place, in my mind as a Brit, seems entirely wrong. Time to throw my Quest on eBay, not sure I want to be a part of this.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sumedh 4y ago
> in my mind as a Brit, seems entirely wrong. I guess Meta is following the "If you have money, you are not wrong" strategy.
lexpar 4y ago
I thought it was clear in the post that Meta is being compelled by the federal government to prove they are not a monopoly and as part of this they need to present a case where they establish they have legitimate competitors. This requires information about the competitors. The federal government is compelling action.
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  Yes and I’m compelled to rob a gas station because the government has compelled me to pay property taxes /s
  - extheat 4y ago
    This is typical for court cases. Even if a party may have little to do with what’s going on trial, if they’re a relevant party in any way they can get sucked in and be forced to give a deposition. It’s totally possible to “plead the 5th” here, but the rationale here is all the relevant facts to a case have to be brought to light in order to make an informed judgment.
    - fonix232 4y ago
      First of all, the 5th amendment only applies to individuals, not entities like corporations. Second, it's main purpose is to not incriminate yourself - sharing business plans is hardly incriminating in itself (unless the business plan is specifically to commit a crime, but that would be dumb... Oh wait). To me this feels like that Meta is trying to simultaneously measure up the market by making their competitors give out business plans that, frankly, are none of Meta's business, while also tying up smaller companies they feel threatened by in legal battles, as to drain their resources and run them into the ground (or, just a more appealing position where Meta can buy them up). And the latter isn't really new - I mean, Amazon pretty much "fired" mid-level executives and "placed" them at various competitors with the sole task of driving down the valuation of the competitor for easier purchase. Either way, this kind of abuse of the legal system is disgusting, and even if the subpoena has legitimate reasons, it places an unfair amount of responsibility on an otherwise uninvolved party. The federal government could compel your company to produce an employee who can jump over a 5m wall, that doesn't mean it's suddenly possible.

by imdsm 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sumedh 4y ago

> in my mind as a Brit, seems entirely wrong. I guess Meta is following the "If you have money, you are not wrong" strategy.

lexpar 4y ago

I thought it was clear in the post that Meta is being compelled by the federal government to prove they are not a monopoly and as part of this they need to present a case where they establish they have legitimate competitors. This requires information about the competitors. The federal government is compelling action.

mrcartmeneses 4y ago
Yes and I’m compelled to rob a gas station because the government has compelled me to pay property taxes /s
- extheat 4y ago
  This is typical for court cases. Even if a party may have little to do with what’s going on trial, if they’re a relevant party in any way they can get sucked in and be forced to give a deposition. It’s totally possible to “plead the 5th” here, but the rationale here is all the relevant facts to a case have to be brought to light in order to make an informed judgment.
  - fonix232 4y ago
    First of all, the 5th amendment only applies to individuals, not entities like corporations. Second, it's main purpose is to not incriminate yourself - sharing business plans is hardly incriminating in itself (unless the business plan is specifically to commit a crime, but that would be dumb... Oh wait). To me this feels like that Meta is trying to simultaneously measure up the market by making their competitors give out business plans that, frankly, are none of Meta's business, while also tying up smaller companies they feel threatened by in legal battles, as to drain their resources and run them into the ground (or, just a more appealing position where Meta can buy them up). And the latter isn't really new - I mean, Amazon pretty much "fired" mid-level executives and "placed" them at various competitors with the sole task of driving down the valuation of the competitor for easier purchase. Either way, this kind of abuse of the legal system is disgusting, and even if the subpoena has legitimate reasons, it places an unfair amount of responsibility on an otherwise uninvolved party. The federal government could compel your company to produce an employee who can jump over a 5m wall, that doesn't mean it's suddenly possible.