Honestly, isn't them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said "we have nothing to do with it" they might've just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can't sue me. Not a good look.
Capricorn_Geriatric
joined 1 year ago
Something very close to Mozilla in my opinion. They'd have the browser as their core product, a few more apps as a logical extension of that (maybe a mail client like Thubderbird), perhaps Chrome Inc would inherit google's office suite? That would be a breath of fresh air. Maybe revive a few of Google's killed ventures that seemed more than promising.
Thank you for the clarification, as I said, there are exceptions which are few and far between for the rule, with this being a huge carveout I missed - selling physical goods is exempt.
But if you want to pay for in-game goods (subscriptions, gems, skins, whatever) or an app outright Apple takes 30%. I know they charge Netflix the 30% for their subscriptions, but wonder about e.g. tickets/passes for transit.
Apple takes a 30% cut from almost all transactions made within all apps installed from the App Store (which is literally all of them) and you're not allowed to advertise e.g. a website to avoid the tax. Patreon rightly passes the 30% onto consumers, as should all apps. Regardless of their own bad practices, Apple needs to be held accountable.
2024 version: Are you an idiot? Windows Do you swim in money? Mac No? Linux
More like "instead of making something that gets the job done, expect pur unfinished product to complain and not do whatever it's supposed to". Or just plain false advertising.
Either way, not a good look and I'm glad it's not just us lemmings who care.
The Eiffel Tower in the meme is as illegal as the Rattaouile frame since if the photo is from a broadcast the royalties have already been dealt with.
I think it isn't a one-time, but rather a yearly fee, so more like a subscription. And on top of that they take their third.
Democracy dies in darkness
From what I've seen, it dies in plain sight to standing ovations
I know. My point was that if there's alock only angels can open and demons can't, it's not as if angels are infallible.
According to the biblical canon Lucifer is a fallen angel.
Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn't happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?
Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it's reasonable.
Whatever scenatio you think of, there's always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it's far-fetched, but not impossible.
However there's at least one thing that's never reasonable, and that's arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can't be amended after it's made. It can't be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.
Arbitration doesn't allow complaint. The judgement is final.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Let's return to your two claims of unreasonability:
There's nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.
What isn't fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.
To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.