51–60 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a strange bit about being a doctor or lawyer -- you aren't allowed to for a C corp for your own practice. However, if someone else forms the corp and you work for them, then you get all the protections of a C corp, as long as you don't own the majority share. So one thing they add is legal protection.
I'm sure there is insurance cheaper than 50% of all profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. Related thought: the influence of lawyers in tech firms - witness the draconian EULAs users are 'forced' to accept with a false binary choice of accept or not - and the role that corporate law staff have had in software development, by effectively limiting the rights of users. It seems to me that many technology firms copy-and-paste the soul of EULAs to protect themselves (against the worse cases that may aris…
I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous ca…
I would concur with this. From the software firm's perspective, there is less risk in being overly cautious (i.e. EULAs) than to have less restrictive and open rights.
Maybe there is a need for a standard common-law contract that provides a set of 8-10 basics and then any companies have to specifically spell out what is different in their personal EULA - and the user can either accept or reject those additional terms? A true accept or reject, that is, and not just two buttons ;)
But then why are EULAs allowed in countries that are far less litigious?
Are other countries compelled to adopt the EULA for their citizens (convenient!), lobbied or pressured via free- or other trade agreements with the USA (soft/smart lobbying!), or are we, as users to blame for pressing 'accept' without any lobbying efforts of our own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All tenure does is largely protect you from getting fired. They can still do a fair amount of damage though you still have employment. Lab space can be reduced, it can get harder to get approvals for research, decreased funding etc.
It's not a deflector shield, but "Protects you from getting fired" is, itself, a powerful tool. Especially at public universities with potentially hostile legislatures/boards of regents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous ca…
Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.
"Warning, contents may be hot"
The "may" always makes me chuckle.
What is the value that private equity and/or VC are adding to dermatology? I guess what I'm asking is, why would the physicians be interested in sharing some portion of their income with these non-physicians? Medicine, like other guild professions like law, dentistry, and accounting, is an enterprise which seems to naturally fit the partnership model instead.
There is a strange bit about being a doctor or lawyer -- you aren't allowed to for a C corp for your own practice. However, if someone else forms the corp and you work for them, then you get all the protections of a C corp, as long as you don't own the majority share. So one thing they add is legal protection.
1. In at least some U.S. jurisdictions (and possibly all), lawyers' practices can indeed be set up as corporations; my former firm was an example. The individual lawyers in the firm are still personally liable for their own malpractice and for that of any junior attorneys and/or staff whom they supervise. The corporate form does protect them from personal liability for the office lease, etc., unless they've personally guaranteed the lease, which is not uncommon. (Don't know how it works for doctors but I assume it's similar.)
2. "C corp" is an income-tax classification; AFAIK it has nothing to do with non-tax liability.
It sounds to me that what is being monetized is the authority of doctors. There's a lot of medical conditions where you rely on the doctor to tell you what to do. After all, you don't have a degree in that. Now I can buy a clinic and pressure all the doctors through an incentive scheme that they are not used to, and get them all to nudge the borderline cases into must-act cases. And chances are each individual case i…
Are socialized medicine systems less evil?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely you can leverage your quality research to find better funding. If anything, situations like this should actually help your career—what better signal you’ve found a good vein of research?
> If anything, situations like this should actually help your career—what better signal you’ve found a good vein of research? How'd it go for Charles Murray?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.
Haven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK? "Warning, contents may be hot" The "may" always makes me chuckle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.
Haven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK? "Warning, contents may be hot" The "may" always makes me chuckle.