Hacker News Reader

Comment by kefka | Hacker News Reader

Gotta love capitalism, eh? Just like votes, more money = more protection.

This certainly wasn't a trademark issue. Trader vs Pirate. There was no question this store wasn't run by Trader Joes/Aldi North. They were buying in bulk to stock a store where they couldn't normally get the goods. Reselling should be 100% A-OK. Any trademarks go along with the products. And as far as I would guess, the grocer certainly wasn't tampering with anything - if (s)he was, they'd go out of business quick.

This is just normal SLAPP-style punitive legal actions that a large monied corporation can do to stop the little guy from doing legal behaviors that they don't like.

View on HN

> Just like votes, more money = more protection.

That's what I find strange with the often-seen "well, just vote with your wallet" argument when a company screws up; it's almost literally the definition of an oligarchy (IE, more money = more decision power).

It's the similar power arrangement when an employee has legitimate grievances with their employer. Individually, they are a speck. Nothing. They can be gotten rid of like the chattel they are.

However, when Unions show up, they are the equal and opposing force that keeps a company in check with regards to their employees. Some have issues with Unions, as some of them are significantly corrupt. But by and large, unions are the equal and opposite force.

What protects small companies from large companies? In reality, nothing. That's what allows fake-patent shakedowns like the "SSL Patent", or others. And that's by exploiting protections in law... But what happens when one side has *10000 the resources? You capitulate and go bankrupt due to legal fees, legal harassment, and a continual defense against a legal monied attack.

In the end, there's fuck-all you can do. Well, other than whatever the monied plantiff wants.

"Vote with your wallet" means hit them where it hurts, because you don't have much of an actual vote in a company's behavior. It has nothing to do with using money to subvert the democratic process.

It normalizes the behavior as acceptable. In reality, the aphorism is based on a ridiculous premise that nobody in their right mind should accept; that money is the only thing responsible for dictating what is acceptable behavior.

Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.

> Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.

Yeah, free market. Like "I have more money, and I dont like your face, so I nuisance sue you until you're bankrupt." free market?

That's not a world I want to be part of, continue, or assist in any way.

It's pretty clear that unregulated capitalism does not work; that's why we have regulations.

What kind of world would it be if we didn't even have rules about things like how much lead is acceptable for a person to consume, or what constitutes 'acutely toxic,' or what you are and aren't allowed to put in food?

"Well," the free market idealist replies, "it would be fine. Nobody would consume things with a lot of lead over a competitor without lead. Nobody would use unlabeled toxic things after the first few incidents. Nobody would eat or drink poison over a nutritious competitor."

And that malicious failure to acknowledge that people are not omniscient or in possession of perfect information about The Market on a second-to-second basis is what leads to us accepting those sorts of stupid arguments.

To be fair, that phrase usually applies to everyday consumer purchases, not a firm using large amounts of money to apply legal pressure to another firm. The normal usage of the phrase is fairly reasonable.

I love capitalism

When is the wedding

I hope they don't get married. I've been happy with capitalism since (at least) March of 1776. And, you know, we both have our flaws (like when she goes out with politicians and gets dirty, no denying it, from time-to-time), but I can always bring capitalism to heel with that "profit motive", and the politicians? Not so much...

Usually it doesn't work to buy products at full retail price and resell them at a higher retail price. I guess the "in Canada" part is how it worked out for him?

Trader Joe's probably wants to protect their brand in hopes of a future Canadian expansion.

Lets be serious here. This is a standard "I'm wrong, but I have more money so Ill exhaust your resources to get what I want."

There's no trademark devaluation. There's no copyright infringement. There's no patent infringement. This is straight up First Sale Doctrine stuff. And even if there was the above 3, SCOUTS ruled those rights are exhausted on sale recently.

This is directly an issue of "More Money = Better Legal Justice". And that should be very worrying.

^This. This kind of shit along with the archaic copyright system we have (though thats slowly improving) I think is one of the biggest reasons the American economy is so sluggish right now.

Easiest way to fix this I think is to make it so that the plaintiff in these kinds of suits has to show real, actual damage: not to branding, not to "theoretical sales", not to "possible expansion", but actual and documented ill effects on their business resulting from the activity of the defendant, and more importantly make the award for such a case relative to that damage. That would shut down 90% of these cases overnight.

There ought to be a law against that. Better, an amendment. No idea on the verbiage though.

IANAL but my impression is the provision in legal due process for expediency is relevant only to the criminal justice system. This example makes for a very good argument that it ought to also apply to the civil justice system. The main mechanism that is used for this kind of legal action is the cost of retaining a law firm for extended periods of time. If the time was reduced the costs would be reduced also. That would partially equalize access to legal representation in civil disputes.

Or make it unlawful to extend a case artificially or until the other party goes bankrupt.

It worked because Trader Joe's hasn't bothered to open up stores in Canada for some reason. They created a market vacuum and this guy came in to fill it.

> Usually it doesn't work to buy products at full retail price and resell them at a higher retail price. I guess the "in Canada" part is how it worked out for him?

This is the most tried-and-true, reliable method of becoming rich in history. You buy something at full retail price, move it, and resell it at a higher full retail price.

This has little to do with capitalism. More like the corporo-fascist police state we inhabit.

In capitalism, Pirate Joe's could open up right next door to Trader Joe's and charge whatever prices they like for the products purchased next door.

Capitalism just means private ownership of the means of production. What you call corporo-fascist is just the natural end game of such an economic system.

In free market land Trader Joe's would have been able to prevent the resale to Pirate Joe's in the first place.

This comment is perhaps a little hyperbolic but it's also pretty dead-on. India is FAR more capitalist the US is these days, possibly too much but here in the States our capitalism is regulated to death, ironically to a large extend by the corporations who whine about too much regulation all the time.

It is only regulation if it hurts you.

No way, there are tons of ways corporations lobby for favorable regulations, most often against competitors. They either make sure the regulations being met will cost more than their competitors can spend, or they write them in such a way where they already meet them and therefore have an advantage, etc. There are numerous ways corporate interests use influence to not so much author regulations, but get them tweaked in such a way that it gives them a leg up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com