3 ms·
No, they came up with some legal theory in which they’d bought the assets of some company, including the company’s ownership of some art, but not obligations li
by preinheimer 4mo ago
No, they came up with some legal theory in which they’d bought the assets of some company, including the company’s ownership of some art, but not obligations like paying royalties.
- throwaway85825 4mo agoOh yes, the incident with the star wars extended universe authors royalties. Disney is the worst.
- taneq 4mo agoThat’s like when I got my shower sealed and then it started leaking within the warranty period. The company claimed that they were the new owners and had purchased the business but not the warranty obligations (!) and I’d have to find the original owner and try to make him honour the warranty. Which was complete BS, obviously, but it wasn’t worth taking to court. :/
- sarchertech 4mo agoA letter from a lawyer or small claims court might be worth it though. It’s not going to take that much of your time, or cost very much.
- sgerenser 4mo agoThere actually are legal ways to do that… instead of buying the company, you start a new company, and just buy assets of the old company (e.g. phone numbers, web sites, trademarks, customer lists). Seems shady but apparently it’s pretty common.
- throwaway85825 4mo agoDoesn't always work. I think J&J tried that with talc powder liability.
- taneq 4mo agoCommon doesn’t mean not shady. In Australia there are measures in place (eg. national registry for company directors, personal liability for directors) to combat this kind of ‘phoenixing’.