It is definitely not a perfect system. The problem is society in general accepts this behavior. It is an absurd claim on its face. They should face social pressure for this behavior. The only thing that I think could make our various systems better is to change what we accept; outside of those systems. The media we are sold and consume should reflect what is important to us. If cases like this were blasted across the twitter verse and people actually cared, it would stop once the spending decreases following the exposure. We are seeing that in other arenas.
I remember reading about a culture in east asia or the pacific where farmers did not have written contracts and usually had very little problems. Everyone knew what was expected and fell in line. If a farmer were to break with the norm, I am sure it would have resulted in them being ostracized.
I hope one day we expect more from each other, and expect more from ourselves.
> It is definitely not a perfect system. The problem is society in general accepts this behavior.
The problem is the justice system accept this behaviour. We can not and should not depends on the public opinion in general to determine injustices to happen. That's why we have a justice system after all.
> The problem is the justice system accept this behaviour.
Judges already have the ability to throw out a case of it has no merit. Why are obvious cases like this possible is a question I'd like an answer to.
We already depend on public opinion in general to determine criminal Justice norms. In place of apple put a prosecutor, in place of pear company put suspect. Every single one of us commits infractions every day we exist in the USA. Protectors use prosecutorial discretion. They do not charge us for every single crime that has technically been committed, because the populace would be up in arms and the prosector would lose their job. Each plaintiff is like a prosecutor. They should be beholden to popular opinion, and that opinion should be that behavior like this should be unacceptable.
You cannot expect a fair society that relies on selective justice. Specially with so much social stratification and marginalisation.
Justice cannot behold on popular opinion at all. There is a reason for 'her' to be a blindfolded lady.
If 'every single of you are committing infractions everyday as you exist in USA' and black represents 40% of male prison population while are just 12% of the whole population and while black youth comprise 14% of the national youth population, 43% of boys and 34% of girls in juvenile facilities are Black, we could easily conclude that this system is highly unfair.
Note: while writing this comment it got my attention that in my mother language the words for justice and fairness are the same.
At the core of the problem is that society is not allowed to not accept this behavior. The systems by which Apple et al abuse their positions to harm small businesses and "the little" guy are literally enshrined in our legal and administrative code. Government decisions of the last 30 years, often regardless of party, have resulted in the single largest consolidation of corporate power under six umbrellas (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Netflix) in Silicon Valley history.
Extraordinarily lax antitrust laws (in both Republican and Democratic administrations, you'd expect the Dems to be tougher on this but follow the money trail and it's simple to see why), a general disdain for shareholder activism, and corporate culture in all of the aforementioned companies prioritizing the needs of advertisers over the needs of the end user.
> The media we are sold and consume should reflect what is important to us. If cases like this were blasted across the twitter verse and people actually cared, it would stop
I would have agreed with you fifteen, maybe ten years ago. The point of no return has been passed. Apple and Amazon alone are worth enough combined for public opinion to matter nil in terms of their actual business practices. They could suffer millions of dollars in bad press and shareholders would continue to invest and consumers would continue to buy product. Look at TSLA as a fantastic example -- Elon consistently sticks his foot in his mouth and makes a mockery of himself but TSLA short sellers continue to lose big time.
The only solution at this point in my view is a fundamental overhaul of antitrust law and safeguards to ensure competition in cutting edge industries, and collectivization of essentials like public internet and public utilities so the profit incentive doesn't get in the way of service. We're already seeing how terrible the outcome is with the Post Office, we don't need any additional privatization in the world of tech.
I am well aware, but the inefficiencies posed by regulatory capture are often used as an excuse to privatize state property, in this case the USPS and the situation with the PMG intentionally hobbling it to make that very case.
Netflix, really? Very little content of their own, and facing increasing competition from established firms. I consider them a little fish in their field compared with Disney.
You make the bills and awards proportional to income. Now large company has very little to gain by suing tiny company, but a lot to lose. And tiny co has a lot to gain, and very little to lose.
This makes big cos more risk averse - not a win, but likely no different in practice to the current US litigation landscape.
But it also makes them consider their relationship with Rest of World more carefully.
This would stifle small companies even more. Think of the reverse scenario where the large company is infringing on patents/trademark. If you sue, you better win because you risk paying double attorney's fees. With judges and juries making poor decisions a very real possibility that's a scary proposition.
A solution for that is for judges to award costs based on the merits of the case and ability of each party to to pay.
Tricky case where both sides have a legitimate reason to believe they are in the right - no costs awarded. Borderline barratry - full costs awarded.
One FAANG sues another - full costs awarded to the winner. Owner of a small corner shop wins against a FAANG - full costs. Other way round, no costs.
Also to set appropriate levels on what costs can be awarded (kinda like the German model). You want to spend 10M on suing a street market stallholder? Knock yourself out, costs awarded = 10k.
So I have to work 9 hour days, come home and cook dinner, do family time, put kids to bed and then go shame random corporations for not following the spirit of the law?
I think that’s unreasonable. Ain’t nobody got time for that, and we have a lot of people who can get paid to do that if we just change the laws.
This is the point though -- society itself is a sick system (in the https://kottke.org/10/06/creating-a-sick-system sense) -- being kept in a perpetual state of crisis makes us unable to fight against the injustices being constantly perpetuated around us. And unlike a job or relationship, even if we fully realize what's happening, we're powerless to leave.
It's could be good enough to take your opinion into account while spending your money, or giving an advise on spending simeone else's money. You also highly probably have some time to occasionally express yourself publicly as you just did :)
> They should face social pressure for this behavior.
Dead simple : don't buy Apple at all and every time you can, explain why you don't and don't spend time explaining "how good Apple is a t anything". That single action wipes anything good they could do.
You don't need to be registered on Twitter to look at a tweet. Not having Twitter account is much easier then most people think. It also saves a lot of time.
I remember reading about a culture in east asia or the pacific where farmers did not have written contracts and usually had very little problems. Everyone knew what was expected and fell in line. If a farmer were to break with the norm, I am sure it would have resulted in them being ostracized.
I hope one day we expect more from each other, and expect more from ourselves.