3 ms·
True, fines should be significantly higher for corporate malfeasance. Give them a $1 billion fine and they will start to consider but maybe they should change t
by Simulacra 1y ago
True, fines should be significantly higher for corporate malfeasance. Give them a $1 billion fine and they will start to consider but maybe they should change their behavior.
- martin-t 1y agoMaybe fines should have two components, one determined by the harm caused, the other by the offender's tolerance to the penalty.
- DanielVZ 1y agoOr should target the actual perpetrators and not the company. Some executive somewhere is seeing this as a win in the cost of doing business and has no disincentive to do criminal business in the future. But if they were fined themselves then they wouldn’t be so bold.
- bobmcnamara 1y agoThe article explains the PRC was in on it. I doubt they're going to hold anyone in Cadence China accountable.
- DanielVZ 1y agoIt also explains that it wasn’t a secret for Cadence US
- shash 1y agoThe amount they seem to have made from the offence is 45 million, so the fine is twice that plus some more. I guess the idea is that you fine them enough that this particular business they’re doing is no longer feasible and hope they drop it. The fine doesn’t need to be a significant portion of their earnings, just like a parking ticket needn’t be a significant portion of your wealth. It just needs to be high enough that the action that caused it makes them less than the act of not doing that.
- bobmcnamara 1y agoThe fine needs to be significant to prevent shoveling tools to the PRC Central Military Commission from being profitable as long as <1/3 of the time they are noticed.