4 ms·
I wonder if being a public company would've made it a lot harder for the US gov to call it "organized crime" or something silly like that.
by nextparadigms 15y ago
I wonder if being a public company would've made it a lot harder for the US gov to call it "organized crime" or something silly like that.
- llambda 15y agoMy feeling is the primary difference would have been that there would have been shareholders, apart from the legitimate users we hear about today, who would have been furious that their investment had been tampered with by the govt. So maybe in that sense it would have required the state to have a stronger case before taking action.
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoHate to be the bearer of bad news but public companies engaging in crime is not uncommon.
- peteretep 15y agoI think that was sort of the point; with credible economic backing, some types of crime are civil matters for the courts. Without them, those same crimes are criminal mafia pirating conspiracy wow.
- s_henry_paulson 15y agoYes, but when Goldman Sachs engages in fraud and damages the economy, they can plea bargain with the SEC for a paltry sum and never have to answer for their crimes.
- alan_cx 15y agoNot being an American I might have missed a huge example of the opposite, but I haven't seen the US gov shut down and destroy a public company. Sue them, yes, but destroy, no. So, presumably, had Megaupload gone public, my guess is that it would still exist, while being sued. It would still have resources to defend its self. What has happened here, or what was attempted here was the destruction of a business and the removal of its ability to fight back. I cant see that happening to a public company. OK, Megaupload can be argued to be shady, but surely the action against is is equally shady.
- irunbackwards 15y agoShady? What do you mean? This is America! Guilty until proven innocent!
- hga 15y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3529331 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3529331