Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by izacus on Monday May 01, 2023 @09:41AM
(#35772644)
What kind of mental model breakage made you put "a citizen" into a position of an unaccountable megacorporation in your analogy?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by aardvarkr on Monday May 01, 2023 @10:41AM
(#35773410)
Unaccountable mega corporations are part of the commonwealth. Per citizens United they have rights too
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by pkilgore on Monday May 01, 2023 @11:28AM
(#35774186)
I can't really tell if this is sarcasm, but whatever rights corporations have in the UK certainly isn't established by a United States Supreme Court decision.
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by nixass on Monday May 01, 2023 @11:51AM
(#35774584)
This forum is sometimes exact same as r/USdefaultism
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by oh_sigh on Monday May 01, 2023 @12:32PM
(#35775213)
You're right, the concept of legal personality was established by common law from before George Washington was even a twinkle in his father's eye. See: Case of Sutton's Hospital.
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by oh_sigh on Monday May 01, 2023 @12:28PM
(#35775155)
A corporation is just a group of people deciding to do something together according to certain rules. It wouldn't make sense that one person, with a lot of resources could do something within their rights, but a group of people with the same pooled resources couldn't do that thing.
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by mtlmtlmtlmtl on Monday May 01, 2023 @01:14PM
(#35775934)
Kant would like a word.
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by izacus on Monday May 01, 2023 @01:29PM
(#35776186)
It absolutely makes sense and we regularly treat synthetic organizations differently than individuals. It's the only way to build good society.
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by danaris on Monday May 01, 2023 @01:52PM
(#35776547)
You said yourself that corporations can only do what they do according to certain rules.
Those rules are not the same as those for individuals.
That is precisely what it means to say that one person, with a certain amount of resources, can do things that a group of people, with the same amount of pooled resources, is forbidden from doing.
Re:Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. ...
by oh_sigh on Monday May 01, 2023 @03:32PM
(#35777930)
The rules generally exist describing how group decision making occurs, how liability is distributed, etc, not rules limiting the rights of what the group can do.
Lord Templeman, law lord, in Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham summarized the law thusly:
> That report[Case of Sutton's Hospital], although largely incomprehensible in 1990, has been accepted as "express authority" that at common law it is an incident to a corporation to use its common seal for the purpose of binding itself to anything which a natural person could bind himself and to deal with its property as a natural person might deal with his own