3 ms·

>There is no upper limit to the amount of resources you could spend investigating something The upper limit is what the courts decide is reasonable, based on t

>There is no upper limit to the amount of resources you could spend investigating something The upper limit is what the courts decide is reasonable, based on the factors of the case, your justification of the requested damages, precedent of similar cases, etc. >$10M is nothing to them but is a life-destroying amount of damages to some kid who made a mistake. Again, the courts make these determinations literally all the time. We don't need to figure out what "reasonable" and "damages" mean from first principles. >It's like claiming that someone broke the lock on your door so now you're not sure if someone might have been inside and you have to strip the whole building to the rafters to check if someone has planted a listening device or hidden some crypto mining hardware inside the walls, even though you're a company that sells tile and carpets. This type of claim is not approved by the courts, because it is clearly unreasonable.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The upper limit is what the courts decide is reasonable, based on the factors of the case, your justification of the requested damages, precedent of similar cases, etc. "The judge will render a decision" still requires you to have some rule for the judge to apply or the result is entirely subjective. You don't want the winner of every case to be the one who can afford to spend the most on lawyers. > This type of claim is not approved by the courts, because it is clearly unreasonable. I feel like you're only making my point. It isn't reasonable in the physical case, so why should it be reasonable in the digital case?
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >still requires you to have some rule for the judge to apply Good thing they can examine a century or two of case law, including lengthy debates on what constitutes “reasonable” and “damages”, to help make their decision. >You don’t want the winner of every case to be the one who can afford to spend the most on lawyers. That is pretty much how it works already. Better lawyers typically make better arguments and, on average, get better results. They also want more money because they are better. You don’t want the winner of the case to be the one who made a worse argument just because they have less money. >It isn’t reasonable in the physical case, so why should it be reasonable in the digital case? Your extremely stretched example is not analogous to the situation.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Good thing they can examine a century or two of case law, including lengthy debates on what constitutes “reasonable” and “damages”, to help make their decision. "A status quo exists" is not an argument for what rule the law should use unless your argument is that status quo bias is the only acceptable mechanism for choosing policy. > That is pretty much how it works already. Is/ought dichotomy. > You don’t want the winner of the case to be the one who made a worse argument just because they have less money. No, what you want is for the law to be clear and reasonable so that spending millions on lawyers to argue over excessive ambiguities is not a prerequisite to attaining a just outcome. > Your extremely stretched example is not analogous to the situation. In what way is it not analogous?
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      >an argument for what rule the law should use >Is/ought dichotomy. For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? >In what way is it not analogous? The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). It's unnecessarily exaggerated and lacks any context. This Automattic stuff has months of history that will be considered. It fails to map just about anything to the digital equivalent, represented in the lawsuit. Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Some companies were obligated to implement manual security controls during the period where Automattic disabled their automated ones. In some cases they had to conduct additional (unscheduled, previously unnecessary) security assessments solely due to the actions of Automattic during their fued with another company about trademarks. Companies had to take time to assess if, how, and when they would move their websites. All of this costs money. If you are an unrelated third-party caught in the crossfire of a frivolous dispute between two companies, seeking reimbursement for that money is reasonable.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? All of these discussions are always about what should happen, because it hasn't happened yet, which means people can still affect the outcome, e.g. by changing the law or convincing a judge to do something different. What would be the point of talking about something if there is nothing anybody can do about it? > The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). This is a thing that commonly happens in the actually analogous situation, i.e. someone who breaks into your servers installs crypto miners on them if they get in. And that was your objection? The point of that example was to provide something that could incur real measurable costs if it actually happened, i.e. giving the other side the benefit of the doubt that a genuine harm is hypothetically possible. The issue is that even assuming that, it's still purely speculative that it would have actually happened. Moreover, you don't seem to like hypotheticals, but the hypothetical is the basis of the claim. "We had to spend money on this mitigation or otherwise hypothetical bad things could have happened." If they spent money in order to prevent nothing then it was wasted money and they were the ones who decided to waste it. > Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Analogies are fairly important because the law operates on the basis of analogies, and in particular, cases like this can set precedents that will be used in analogous cases. Which means we might want to consider what happens if the defendant is a kid instead of a large business and whether you really want to level that amount of damages on them. > All of this costs money. All of everything costs money. If you're using some Google service as an important part of your business and then they discontinue it as is their custom, it could cause you a lot of trouble. Does that mean you should be able to sue them when they do that? People are allowed to be petulant and your main recourse is to stop doing business with them. You can also get companies to promise in writing not to be petulant, but in general getting them to guarantee that requires paying them a buttload of money and people are often more inclined to risk the consequences than buy the insurance.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> The upper limit is what the courts decide is reasonable, based on the factors of the case, your justification of the requested damages, precedent of similar cases, etc. "The judge will render a decision" still requires you to have some rule for the judge to apply or the result is entirely subjective. You don't want the winner of every case to be the one who can afford to spend the most on lawyers. > This type of claim is not approved by the courts, because it is clearly unreasonable. I feel like you're only making my point. It isn't reasonable in the physical case, so why should it be reasonable in the digital case?

ziddoap 2y ago
>still requires you to have some rule for the judge to apply Good thing they can examine a century or two of case law, including lengthy debates on what constitutes “reasonable” and “damages”, to help make their decision. >You don’t want the winner of every case to be the one who can afford to spend the most on lawyers. That is pretty much how it works already. Better lawyers typically make better arguments and, on average, get better results. They also want more money because they are better. You don’t want the winner of the case to be the one who made a worse argument just because they have less money. >It isn’t reasonable in the physical case, so why should it be reasonable in the digital case? Your extremely stretched example is not analogous to the situation.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Good thing they can examine a century or two of case law, including lengthy debates on what constitutes “reasonable” and “damages”, to help make their decision. "A status quo exists" is not an argument for what rule the law should use unless your argument is that status quo bias is the only acceptable mechanism for choosing policy. > That is pretty much how it works already. Is/ought dichotomy. > You don’t want the winner of the case to be the one who made a worse argument just because they have less money. No, what you want is for the law to be clear and reasonable so that spending millions on lawyers to argue over excessive ambiguities is not a prerequisite to attaining a just outcome. > Your extremely stretched example is not analogous to the situation. In what way is it not analogous?
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >an argument for what rule the law should use >Is/ought dichotomy. For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? >In what way is it not analogous? The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). It's unnecessarily exaggerated and lacks any context. This Automattic stuff has months of history that will be considered. It fails to map just about anything to the digital equivalent, represented in the lawsuit. Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Some companies were obligated to implement manual security controls during the period where Automattic disabled their automated ones. In some cases they had to conduct additional (unscheduled, previously unnecessary) security assessments solely due to the actions of Automattic during their fued with another company about trademarks. Companies had to take time to assess if, how, and when they would move their websites. All of this costs money. If you are an unrelated third-party caught in the crossfire of a frivolous dispute between two companies, seeking reimbursement for that money is reasonable.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? All of these discussions are always about what should happen, because it hasn't happened yet, which means people can still affect the outcome, e.g. by changing the law or convincing a judge to do something different. What would be the point of talking about something if there is nothing anybody can do about it? > The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). This is a thing that commonly happens in the actually analogous situation, i.e. someone who breaks into your servers installs crypto miners on them if they get in. And that was your objection? The point of that example was to provide something that could incur real measurable costs if it actually happened, i.e. giving the other side the benefit of the doubt that a genuine harm is hypothetically possible. The issue is that even assuming that, it's still purely speculative that it would have actually happened. Moreover, you don't seem to like hypotheticals, but the hypothetical is the basis of the claim. "We had to spend money on this mitigation or otherwise hypothetical bad things could have happened." If they spent money in order to prevent nothing then it was wasted money and they were the ones who decided to waste it. > Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Analogies are fairly important because the law operates on the basis of analogies, and in particular, cases like this can set precedents that will be used in analogous cases. Which means we might want to consider what happens if the defendant is a kid instead of a large business and whether you really want to level that amount of damages on them. > All of this costs money. All of everything costs money. If you're using some Google service as an important part of your business and then they discontinue it as is their custom, it could cause you a lot of trouble. Does that mean you should be able to sue them when they do that? People are allowed to be petulant and your main recourse is to stop doing business with them. You can also get companies to promise in writing not to be petulant, but in general getting them to guarantee that requires paying them a buttload of money and people are often more inclined to risk the consequences than buy the insurance.