Hacker News Reader

Comment by syassami | Hacker News Reader

My personal fav: 148kb, $530B company. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com

Just for your information, from their legal page: "...linking to this website without written permission is prohibited." Not sure what is meant by this, but I found it funny.

IANAL

What I think they mean by this is that you shouldn't link to resources on their website to make it seem like they endorse your (product, website, whatever).

Imagine if we all wrote?

HN hug of love, by snail mail. Buffet Bro would get so busy BRK share price might drop a few bucks due to this alone ;-)

That same sentence starts (paraphrasing) "[Copying or giving out of any stuff gotten on this domain ... is banned]" so merely quoting the legal terms is also "illegal".

I assume you went through the proper channels to get written permission to make that link.

From the legal disclaimer at the bottom:

> linking to this website without written permission is prohibited

How enforceable is this? And what's the likelihood anyone would try to enforce it?

Probably as enforceable as having "looking at me is prohibited" written on your shirt while walking down the street.

Want to tell them you like it? Better buy a stamp.

"If you have any comments about our WEB page, you can write us at the address shown above. However, due to the limited number of personnel in our corporate office, we are unable to provide a direct response."

I see they have a link to "Berkshire Activewear". Now that's a much much more heavyweight page.

Can it be assumed that this same website has been in place since 1978? Obviously not exactly like it is now, but probably not far off.

I'd assume not, given that Tim Berners-Lee hadn't invented HTTP yet.

But, the website looks rather similar to how it did back in 2001 (with the recognizable two-column list of bullet points):

https://web.archive.org/web/20011129002047/https://www.berks...

HTML being from the early 90s or so, I wanna say "no."

I wonder what the logic for the 1978 date is. It's hard for me to believe they had any reasonably connected predecessor of this in 1978.

It’s the copyright for the entire website. There’s a letter to shareholders written March 14, 1978 - https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1977.html

And it has an ad on it. (Boy do I miss the days of Google's text only ads)

Seems impressive but considering most holding companies have no website maybe it’s bloated

and it has an ad for geico

Including an ad, no less.

That's not completely fair since they are an investment holding company.

How about you average their subsidiary web pages? Start with DQ.com (Dairy Queen)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com