121–130 of 259 posts
"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't know about American law, but in French the notion exists and is called "abus de droit"; just because you can do something "in general", you can't do it with the specific purpose of circumventing another legal obligation. For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France. That's a right. But if you're doing business in France essentially, you can't make the French com…
For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France. The whole point of the EU single market is that you do not have to do that. You can set up shop in Ireland and sell to the French market until the cows come home. You only owe Irish taxes (modulo the recent completely crazy VAT changes). Laws that say "forget the law, anything we think is unreasonable is illegal" are a gro…
I think you have an unsophisticated view of legal systems. Law consists of more than just what is written into the text of legislation. It is a historical practice done by people working in courts and in law enforcement. It interacts with the people as they serve on juries. Law is a living thing bound in tradition and culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "cat in microwave/washing machine/toaster" Okay, I'm curious. What's this supposed to mean? That consumers are putting cats in those devices and getting away with it, or putting cats in those devices to void warranties or something? The best I can come up with is that you are thinking of cat in the microwave, which is an urban legend . I'm not sure how that's affecting the view of the US legal system.
I am not saying that it is absolutely true, just that it is the notion many have: In the US you can do something stupid and blame the manufacturer for the damages, if it was not saying in the manual, that you cannot do it. Combine that with uncapped and ridiculously high compensation claims plus class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression. As I said, this may not be totall…
> class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression.
Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea.
> As I said, this may not be totally true
In this case, I would hazard it's likely totally untrue. You'll likely go to jail for animal abuse, not sue the manufacturer.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_out...
2: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/15/474406842/episo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Laws that say "forget the law, anything we think is unreasonable is illegal" are a growing problem in Europe. It makes the EU look like fools Not trying to start a flamewar here, but the common German/European perspective on the US legal system consists of corporations owning it (because of huge costs), consumers abusing it ("cat in microwave/washing machine/toaster", unreasonable compensations, class action lawsuit…
>cat in microwave How oddly specific....were you referencing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE I do agree the U.S has a problem with rather frivulious lawsuits over "not following the letter of the law" or "wasn't mentioned in the safety manual to not do this thing that should have been common sense". It seems when people think "American legal system" things like this come to mind: http://i.imgur.com/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In America, there's at least one clear example of this - laws against "structuring". Basically, they say that it's criminal to arrange financial transactions with the purpose of avoiding laws about financial transactions. As an example, banks are required to report all deposits of $20,000. It's a right to deposit $19,999 into a bank account, nothing wrong there. But to deposit $19,999 five times in a row, rather than…
Structuring laws are highly controversial and have caused huge amounts of pain for innocent people who were just legitimately trying to reduce their paperwork burden. They're bad laws.
Idk, but I feel Google is under tremendous pressure right now.Oracle likely going to win (they have best legal team in whole industry). Europe will hit Google with antitrust and now this.Microsot is coming for them, and they(Microsoft) positioned themselves very well. Maybe I don't realize correctly, but it seems Google is going to have hard time with all of this.
The businesses that understand game theory like the ones you see winning against google are doing better. This is one of life's uncomfortable truths.
"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.
It's not the most eloquent phrasing. I think what they're trying to say is "People find legalistic tax-dodging unethical, and they're sick of rich people and big companies getting away with it."
Idk, but I feel Google is under tremendous pressure right now.Oracle likely going to win (they have best legal team in whole industry). Europe will hit Google with antitrust and now this.Microsot is coming for them, and they(Microsoft) positioned themselves very well. Maybe I don't realize correctly, but it seems Google is going to have hard time with all of this.
> Oracle likely going to win (they have best legal team in whole industry) You may be right but I really hope you're not. Such a dangerous precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "cat in microwave/washing machine/toaster" Okay, I'm curious. What's this supposed to mean? That consumers are putting cats in those devices and getting away with it, or putting cats in those devices to void warranties or something? The best I can come up with is that you are thinking of cat in the microwave, which is an urban legend . I'm not sure how that's affecting the view of the US legal system.
He should have cited the woman who spilled hot coffee on her. The legal precedent being set by the court was "if it's hot enough to hurt someone label it that way" and to do that they had to award punitive (you screwed up and we're punishing you) damages. If they just ordered the company to pay based on medical costs it would have basically said "this is your fault and you should pay for her medical care" but by awar…
> by awarding punitive damages the court was trying (and succeeded) to send a message about what is and is not acceptable.
The jury decides whether the lawsuit is warranted and how much to award. The court can alter this to try to make a statement (and in the case I referenced, the court reduced damages in each judgement).
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.
Don't know about American law, but in French the notion exists and is called "abus de droit"; just because you can do something "in general", you can't do it with the specific purpose of circumventing another legal obligation. For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France. That's a right. But if you're doing business in France essentially, you can't make the French com…
Sure, some will say that it creates too much of a gray area, but that's life. Sorry. I think there's a lot more "effective" ambiguity when everyone is trying to dodge the spirit of the law and exploit loopholes. It creates chaos that lobbyists, consultants, and others can exploit.
Focusing on enforcing the spirit of the law may lead to some abuses, but those abuses have to be weighed against the massive, systemic, abuses that occur when people violate the spirit of the law.