undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdonmcronald3y ago0 comments

That’s insane! Imagine if a small company invented a cure for cancer. Would they be liable for the losses of all the pharmaceutical companies?

It would be the end of innovation.

0 comments

chowells3y ago

No, because they would present massive gains to every industry that loses employees to cancer. That's all of them, by the way. There would be no net loss, and innovation would continue to be rewarded.

What would no longer be rewarded is parasitism.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

If companies were that concerned about loosing employees, companies like deliveroo and amazon would not be destroying their health. Coal minin conoanies would not need health and safety regulation - they used to literally kill their workers

Kranar3y ago

I know I should interpret every comment in good faith, but it really is hard to understand how you can read my comment and make such a reply. It feels like you didn't actually take the time to understand what I said or even read the article before commenting.

At any rate, if a company found a cure for cancer the stock market would absolutely skyrocket in a way almost never before seen. It's unbelievably hard to imagine how a company finding a cure for cancer would be to the detriment to a diversified portfolio.

arjvik3y ago

What's to say the stock market would skyrocket? Especially if this cure is accessible to everyone and published freely online, the only direct effect is pharma companies stocks crashing because of a loss of oncology drug revenue. Who's to say what the rest of the stock market would to to react?

Even if it's a tossup, does that mean there's a 50% chance of the inventor of such a cure being liable for that crash?

pacerier3y ago

It doesn't work like this. If it's a tossup (ie probability =~1:1) then there's no legal liability. Importantly, whether the cat's dead or alive is irrelevant.

The issue here is that it's not a tossup. The probability is >=2:1 hence the liability, even if that is alive after the plunge.

jbombadil3y ago

Legit question: is it "detriment to a generic diversified portfolio" or "detriment to a specific diversified portfolio"? (As in if my portfolio is diversified and it got decreased in value I have grounds to sue)

Kranar3y ago

The complaint in the article says that Meta is required to consider the impact of its actions on the diversified portfolios held by its shareholders. The plaintiff asserts that it's not about having a detrimental impact on a generic diversified portfolio but rather the various diversified portfolios held by its shareholders.

The specific complaint is that Meta ignored the concerns raised by its shareholders about the impact of its actions on the broader portfolios held by its shareholders.

Once again I do not think this case has merit, and lawsuits of this nature almost always fail, but we should at least take some time to understand what is actually being pled so that we can object to it with a firm standing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

chowells3y ago

What would no longer be rewarded is parasitism.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

Kranar3y ago

arjvik3y ago

Even if it's a tossup, does that mean there's a 50% chance of the inventor of such a cure being liable for that crash?

pacerier3y ago

It doesn't work like this. If it's a tossup (ie probability =~1:1) then there's no legal liability. Importantly, whether the cat's dead or alive is irrelevant.

The issue here is that it's not a tossup. The probability is >=2:1 hence the liability, even if that is alive after the plunge.

jbombadil3y ago

Kranar3y ago

The specific complaint is that Meta ignored the concerns raised by its shareholders about the impact of its actions on the broader portfolios held by its shareholders.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse