Search results

And the lawsuit was retracted before even discovery. The lawsuit was marketing, plain and simple, just like all the other ones, like Nunes's and Gabbard's.

Your argument here doesn't work. Amazon isn't a competitor of Parler, so the bolded part is wrong. Amazon almost certainly did this because they don't like the right, Trump, the capitol riot, or some similar reason. And all of those reasons are legally fine. Parler is basically going for a hail...

The phrase "financial stakeholder" isn't used in the Sherman Antitrust laws, or for that matter anywhere in 15 USC Chapter 1 (the stuff dealing with monopolies). For that matter, "stakeholder" isn't used either. (CTRL + F on this to verify) I used the word stakeholder to mean owner or partial...

You're trying to use the definition of a term I used offhand to simplify a legal principle. This doesn't help you position at all, because the law doesn't give a shit about how I summarize it. I just used financial stakeholder as a way to say owner or partial owner. That's all. And Amazon isn't...

That's not a financial stake. That's a customer/business relationship. A financial stake would be owning a good part of Twitter, for example (think stakeholder). The financial stake part is basically asking is Amazon a competitor/owns a competitor of Parler. It clearly doesn't. Moreover, Parler...

So I just listened to the Judge's ruling, and no, it has a lot to do with whether Parler will win their legal case (though not their standing, which Parler definitely has). In short, after listening, I am even more certain Parler is going to lose, and more, that Parler will lose on the breach...

The antitrust is by no means the smaller part of the lawsuit. Even if they win the breach of contract, all that means is that they get 30 days of AWS before leaving, not 2. It's just there to get immediate injunctive relief to push off this problem. Read the filing, which consists almost...

Given that he's not a American lawyer, and on top of that, he's not a anti-trust lawyer, and the citation I gave quotes many experts on the topic, including lawyers, no, I don't think he does. Antitrust law requires harming competitors. There is no competition between Parler and Amazon.

No, I had read a fair amount about it, and looking at it, there's no chance that it would work. I know (roughly, IANAL) what antitrust lawsuits entail, and for Amazon to be sued over antitrust for banning Parler, it would have to at least, have some financial stake in something Twitter-like, or...

The antitrust has no chance of working. The breach of contract one might.

To be honest, Amazon will win the suit if the law is neutrally applied. Amazon is a company, with the right not to do business with people it doesn't like.