4 ms·

I don't have time to read much of the lawsuit, but is Think Computer suing for some sort of injunction to require all the companies listed to use Face Cash as o

I don't have time to read much of the lawsuit, but is Think Computer suing for some sort of injunction to require all the companies listed to use Face Cash as only it has a California Money Transfer Act license? And for those double taking at the name, Aaron Greenspan is the CEO of Think Computer. http://www.thinkcomputer.com/ http://www.thinkcomputer.com/

kevingadd 13y ago
From reading the complaint, it seems more likely that the expected result here is something like: * State is forced to fairly enforce the rules that caused Think Computer so much trouble (re money transmitter regulations) * Fairly enforcing the rules causes incredible amounts of grief & overhead for companies large enough to comply, and drives smaller companies out of business * The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed I could see there also being an interest here in having investors be penalized for knowingly investing in companies that were violating the law (having a board seat seems like it would give you enough access to realize that a portfolio company is a money transmitter and be able to ask them whether they're licensed).
- hollerith 13y ago
  >The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed Huh? The law just got rid of many of their competitors, and they're going to push to change the law?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- hollerith 13y ago
  >The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed Huh? They're going to push to change a law that prevents smaller companies from competing with them?
axus 13y ago
He's suing them for "unfair competition", because none of them have an MTA license, yet are still operating. As far as I can tell! http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&#3...
jacoblyles 13y ago
It seems strange to me that he would have standing to sue for the state to enforce its own laws, but IANAL
- prostoalex 13y ago
  It's a way to set the precedent with a court decision in hand. The most memorable twist on enforcement is Veoh suing Universal Music Group over the threats from UMG in hopes to be found not guilty, essentially asking the court to pretend Universal was suing them http://mashable.com/2007/08/09/veoh-universal/ http://mashable.com/2007/08/09/veoh-universal/

kevingadd 13y ago

From reading the complaint, it seems more likely that the expected result here is something like: * State is forced to fairly enforce the rules that caused Think Computer so much trouble (re money transmitter regulations) * Fairly enforcing the rules causes incredible amounts of grief & overhead for companies large enough to comply, and drives smaller companies out of business * The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed I could see there also being an interest here in having investors be penalized for knowingly investing in companies that were violating the law (having a board seat seems like it would give you enough access to realize that a portfolio company is a money transmitter and be able to ask them whether they're licensed).

hollerith 13y ago
>The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed Huh? The law just got rid of many of their competitors, and they're going to push to change the law?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
hollerith 13y ago
>The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed Huh? They're going to push to change a law that prevents smaller companies from competing with them?

axus 13y ago

He's suing them for "unfair competition", because none of them have an MTA license, yet are still operating. As far as I can tell! http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&#3...

jacoblyles 13y ago

It seems strange to me that he would have standing to sue for the state to enforce its own laws, but IANAL

prostoalex 13y ago
It's a way to set the precedent with a court decision in hand. The most memorable twist on enforcement is Veoh suing Universal Music Group over the threats from UMG in hopes to be found not guilty, essentially asking the court to pretend Universal was suing them http://mashable.com/2007/08/09/veoh-universal/ http://mashable.com/2007/08/09/veoh-universal/