Always amazing when it takes “disruptive” Silicon Valley businesses so much legal wrangling just to turn (barely) a profit (not including AWS).
Amazon is in WA, not the valley
Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
391–400 of 431 posts
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patent claims are also written broadly, deliberately by the lawyers. There's a whole part of every trial where "claim construction" takes place, and I personally helped with many of those briefs when in Google Legal. The briefs never argue "what the inventor intended." They argue about what the claims and the spec says and what those words mean. That can, indeed, leave room for argument, and that's why both sides wri…
Not trying to be rude here, but I highly recommend you do a little more research on the common law system and how it works. At it's core, common law states that laws are interpreted over time and these interpretations become the official law of the land. There is no requirement that every conceivable form of infraction be enumerated within the law itself. Patents are something else entirely and not relevant to this d…
I don't know what your legal credentials are (are you a lawyer?). I had an article cited in an amicus brief to SCOTUS for the CLS Bank case, plus a shorter one in Law360. What have you published? Aside from that, I helped with numerous claim construction briefs.
I highly recommend you educate yourself about the distinction between common law and statutory law, since you seem confused:
> A clarification of the term "common law" is in order at this point. While common law may have originally referred to a body of law thought to exist in common across jurisdictions under generally accepted standards of legal reasoning, I use the term here to distinguish statutory law made by legislators from case law made by courts. It is well understood that each state has its own common law, crafted by its courts under the supervision of the state supreme court, subject only to the supremacy of federal statutory and constitutional law.
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2...
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
Corporations' relationship to their contractors is most definitely not "common law." At most, it's administrative law, and if we come to questions of interpretation, it's statutory law.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
White college graduates are almost evenly split between the parties..
And what does the white highschool dropout split look like? Obama lost the white non-college educated vote by 26 points to Romney, by the way.
> Obama lost the white non-college educated vote by 26 points to Romney, by the way.
I’m sorry what??
It was the complete opposite. Obama won the “high-school dropout” vote overwhelmingly. Had narrow majority amongst those who graduated and actually lost college graduate vote to Romney by 4%…
Romney also won every income bracket above 50k
Less educated people started voting for the Republicans in 2016 but not quite to the extent they voted for Obama.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
"quite wrong" -- no, you're wrong. "legislative intent" is in fact deeply controversial among judges. What counts as "intent"? Something a bill sponsor said, but other sponsors disagreed with? the only certain thing is what the bill says, and the fact that it passed.
They claimed a specific thing is quite wrong. "the idea that any given set of words has only one tenable interpetation to start with" Do you really disagree with that claim? If legal words only had one tenable intepretation we could resolve contract disputes so quickly...
> Do you really disagree with that claim?
why don't you say what language is being misinterpreted, and we'll go from there?
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you and I were raised differently. In the end, it is all about stepping out of yourself and understanding the reality of the person in front of you. That is a two way street.
""" In every single person there's a Slim Shady lurking He could be working at Burger King, spittin' on your onion rings """ Given long enough doing robotic work under what you seem unfair/dehumanizing conditions, the Slim Shady may come out. But who knows maybe you are a different breed, good for you.
I don't think it is a valuable use of your time to try to dismiss me or try to generalize humanity.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third citation in my comment addresses your argument. Hard to become conservative when you have nothing to lose. https://archive.is/iRyQE/f34b0a039aef880774f7d7d1dac5c0f5545...
It's not hard when you have the will and work ethic.
Even in the face of hard facts, people resort to self deception in order to protect treasured illusions.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol...
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#397This behavior of legal loopholes to discount workers should be made illegal. The definition of sub-contractor has got to change and/or have laws/policies in place that actually make sense in a sub contractor relationship. These are shell companies that spin up and exclusively deliver for amazon, they aren't gig workers delivering when they want, they have strict quotas.
Unfortunately "subcontractor" is politically equivalent to "small business owner". You have a whole class of people who think they're being pandered to by tax incentives and other programs.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
They claimed a specific thing is quite wrong. "the idea that any given set of words has only one tenable interpetation to start with" Do you really disagree with that claim? If legal words only had one tenable intepretation we could resolve contract disputes so quickly...
> Do you really disagree with that claim? why don't you say what language is being misinterpreted, and we'll go from there?
Okay, let's start with "the entire body of law".
If even a small fraction of laws have multiple tenable interpretations then that comment is correct.
If you don't think that's the case for some laws, then I'm shocked.
And this is before introducing the concept of "legislative intent", this is just at the base level of looking at the text of laws.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you really disagree with that claim? why don't you say what language is being misinterpreted, and we'll go from there?
Okay, let's start with "the entire body of law". If even a small fraction of laws have multiple tenable interpretations then that comment is correct. If you don't think that's the case for some laws, then I'm shocked. And this is before introducing the concept of "legislative intent", this is just at the base level of looking at the text of laws.
I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, let's start with "the entire body of law". If even a small fraction of laws have multiple tenable interpretations then that comment is correct. If you don't think that's the case for some laws, then I'm shocked. And this is before introducing the concept of "legislative intent", this is just at the base level of looking at the text of laws.
I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"
I don't think anyone said that laws were being interpreted wrongly?
The claim was that some laws have multiple tenable interpretations. So for those laws you can have multiple distinct options, none of which are wrong ways to read the text.
The thing called "wrong" was the idea that laws never do this.