Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by dragonwriter on Monday February 06, 2017 @12:52PM (#13582021)

Amazon, as one of the plaintiffs in the case (the State of Washington is the first named plaintiff; the "et al." on the case title means there are others, which include Amazon and Expedia), can't file (alone or with others) an amicus brief, which is a brief by interested non-parties.

But it's misleading to count them as a company that choose not to sign on to the amicus brief.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by flexie on Monday February 06, 2017 @01:46PM (#13582609)

You are right that they have made separate declarations of support, but are they plaintiffs? I think 'et al' refers to the sole other plaintiff, the state of Minnesota: http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by dragonwriter on Monday February 06, 2017 @01:59PM (#13582721)

You may be correct; I've seen a number of articles specifically claiming Amazon and Expedia joined the lawsuit (which has a clear and well accepted meaning), but on review there are also a lot claiming that the relation and there involvement is somewhat different, and I can't immediately find any definitive documentation of their joining as plaintiffs (they clearly weren't initial plaintiffs). Their involvement by any of the reports may still be of a kind to make it inappropriate for them to be amici, and they clearly support Washington (and Minnesota) substantively in the case, at any rate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by flexie on Monday February 06, 2017 @02:23PM (#13582962)

Yes, they do.

[ Parent | on HN ]