4 ms·
Because a settlement is a lot closer to indicating causation than correlation is.
by drawkward 2y ago
Because a settlement is a lot closer to indicating causation than correlation is.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoThis comment would make a lot of lawyers’ heads spin.
- drawkward 2y agoThat's because the legal profession has all kinds of rules about "truth" and what can be admitted in court as "evidence", that differ from true causality. There are whole swaths of things that can be true but inadmissable because they were not discovered the right way. There is a reason we call practitioners of the law lawyers and not scientists
- lotsofpulp 2y agoDecisions to settle are based on money/time/stress cost and probability of favorable judgement from an underqualified judge/jury, rather than the decision just being based on reality, which is often not provable.
- mrguyorama 2y agoIf you as a corporation are unwilling to take the time/effort/resources to prove in a court of law that there is (civil case) not enough evidence to show you most likely did the "wrong" thing, then do not be surprised when the public draws adverse inferences. The expensive nature of the american court system could be improved in a way that you would never be worse off defending yourself, but these companies don't push for that because they LIKE having the power to bully people with stupid expensive lawfare.
- freejazz 2y agoAh yes, because there is a legal document disclaiming any liability, no one would be reasonable when inferring any. Also, lol at the underqualified jury comment. It's a bit telling on your part. Juries are inherently underqualified? No, sounds like a corporation that doesn't want to face the extreme financial risk that occurs when they face judgment for their conduct.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoSee this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42601569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42601569 Specifically this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42612782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42612782 Of course, all those comments could be fake, as could mine, but if you have any experience with the courts in the US, then you know going to trial means a lot of uncertainty.
- drawkward 2y agoIn the context of this discussion, i suspect a good lawyer could say: look at the correlation between avian influenza and the price increases... Unless there were evidence that would come out in discovery that in fact there was price gouging going on.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI would hope even a bad lawyer (or a non lawyer such as a random HN commenter) could make the case that, absent evidence of illegal behavior, one should assume prices change due to shifting supply and demand curves.
- drawkward 2y agoMy evidence is the settlement. A settlement is not evidence of absence. On the contrary, a settlement suggests just the opposite.
- freejazz 2y ago>Of course, all those comments could be fake, as could mine, but if you have any experience with the courts in the US, then you know going to trial means a lot of uncertainty. I'm an attorney, I stand by exactly what I said. You pointing out there is uncertainty doesn't change my point at all. The majority of the uncertainty is the extent of the risk faced by the corp for its bad deeds. Don't be too obtuse.
- neuroelectron 2y ago
- freejazz 2y agoSure, and plenty of lawyers love putting their head in the sand and relying on the principle that in the US legal system, everyone is entitled to a good legal defense.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoHow is that relevant here? Most settlements happen in civil cases, where there is no right to a lawyer, much less a good one. Otherwise, I don’t know what you could mean.
- freejazz 2y agoIt's what all the corporate attorneys tell themselves when they parrot the same line you do about settlements. And in civil cases, corporations must have an attorney, which I suspect you know.