Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
What's concerning to me is that this Australian court is considering the intricate details of Nevada's merger law at all. From reading this article, it sounds to me that if Nevada changed its merger law so that an acquiring company didn't keep legal liabilities imposed by other countries on the acquired party, the Australian court would have decided that indeed, X doesn't have to pay Twitter's fine. Which is an insane takeaway IMO.
We should be looking at this through the lens of Australian law only, and trying to figure out what Australian merger process is mostly closely related to the Nevada one which was used.
The article mentions that the fine will stand and likely be doubled, but I feel like for arguments that are especially stupid, like this one, it should be doubled again.
There are enough corporate loopholes as it is, I can only imagine the chaos if this were allowed.
So, what's the fine here? $350?
I might just be misremembering, but I don't think the fine itself increased, it's just that their total costs have increased since they have to pay the legal costs for both sides.