3 ms·
> I guess the difference now is that Google is really big. Ok. But is that really the only reason? So as you are insinuating things why not be clear and name i
by meiraleal 3y ago
> I guess the difference now is that Google is really big. Ok. But is that really the only reason?
So as you are insinuating things why not be clear and name it? What is it, corruption? Or do you think that the fact that AOL deal wasn't considered illegal, no deal ever will be and Apple/Google are free to do as they please? Your idea of justice is quite weird.
- jessicas_rabbit 3y agoI believe OP was genuinely interested in identifying rationale for this discrepancy in legal precedent, regardless of any personal stance they hold on the justice of this business deal.
- mrgoldenbrown 3y agoOP didn't describe any particular legal precedent though, so we don't know why OP thinks the AOL deal was legal. There's a big difference between "nobody cared enough to sue or prosecute X behavior" and "X behavior has been tested in court and was ruled legal".
- dang 3y agoCan you please not post in the flamewar style? It's quite against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You can make your substantive points without that, so if you'd please do so instead, we'd be grateful.