News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Columbia University vs the little guy by jonknee on Friday December 17, 2010 @02:00PM (#2017276)
It's not quite a fair comparison as these two businesses can simply move next door and continue to operate shop. It would be more similar to Microsoft buying land that included the BCC offices and you had to accept it and then move down the block. Depending on the offer it ranges from a really good deal to outright theft.
Re:Columbia University vs the little guy by anthuswilliams on Friday December 17, 2010 @03:10PM (#2017569)
It's not a really good deal, because if it was a really good deal they would try to persuade you directly rather than asking the legislatosaurus to do it for them.
Re:Columbia University vs the little guy by eftpotrm on Friday December 17, 2010 @05:12PM (#2018074)
For a single isolated transaction that may well be fine; when (for whatever reason) there is only one possible vendor - the last parcel of land blocking a scheme for example - that vendor is using the law (of private propoerty in that case) to exploit the other party quite as much if they choose to hold out for an unreasonable sum. The whole purpose of this system is to determine a fair means for the transaction as a whole to proceed without either party being able to unreasonably exploit the other.