Timeline for We're examining the implementation of arbitration in the 2018 ToS update
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2018 at 13:42 | comment | added | Joris Meys | @TimPost But that argumentation holds only for the US. Patent (and other) law at this side of the ocean is different, and the patent wars so abundant in the US are far less common here. As someone else pointed out, your arbitration clause won't hold up in a European court either. So this seems to be very much focused on US law whereas your user base is literally worldwide. For me this arbitration clause is a deal breaker to contribute to this site. | |
| May 4, 2018 at 15:38 | history | edited | artem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
correction
|
| May 4, 2018 at 7:08 | comment | added | artem | There are way too many variables at play. They have just released brand-new, subscription-based product. I'm sure they are going to monitor closely how many new paying customers they are able to get, how many 'productized users' they are losing, how many new products they are able to develop and release with current funding, and calculate their next move. Without access to that data, we can only speculate. | |
| May 4, 2018 at 6:50 | comment | added | Lundin | Where do you think SO's money's coming from in the first place? They have the fairly unique position that their customers is also their product. A lost customer is therefore not just a loss of revenue (which is bad enough for most companies) but also a loss of products. With that in mind they should perhaps care more about their customers/product and less about some 3rd party investors. | |
| May 4, 2018 at 1:45 | history | edited | artem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 498 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2018 at 20:39 | history | edited | artem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2018 at 20:11 | comment | added | yannis | @user2357112 That would be relevant only if it was an absolute requirement for the arbitration process in general. If not, then I question the wisdom of choosing to go into business with JAMS Inc. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 19:58 | comment | added | user2357112 | @yannis: That's required by Jams - see list item 1. I believe the idea is at least partially that arbitration is supposed to reduce legal fees, and both sides should be protected from the other side trying to bury them in legal fees. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 19:49 | comment | added | yannis | See Henning Makholm's answer. What you wrote here is not unreasonable, but it does not explain why the arbitration clause isn't limited to disputes where someone demands something from SE. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 19:47 | history | edited | artem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
try to expand and explain
|
| May 3, 2018 at 19:08 | comment | added | artem | As I said, this is all a result of my imagination, which can be fuzzy at times. But taking investors money certainly affects the process of making company policy decisions. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 18:45 | comment | added | user2357112 | I don't see why you emphasize taking investors' money. I'm not aware of any major recent changes in Stack Exchange's position regarding taking investors' money; they haven't IPO'd or anything, and they've been taking investors' money since at least 2011. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 18:33 | comment | added | user50049 | You can also think of it like patent portfolios. A lot of companies have those for purely defensive purposes because bad actors have made them a sort of necessity, and the portfolios tend to grow in a manner that's commensurate with the growth of the company, and their desire to not attract nuisance lawsuits that they will likely need to settle in order to avoid losing and setting precedent that directly affects their valuation. We're nowhere near that big, but we are big enough for bad actors to start looking for opportunities. Not for patents, but just ... opportunities. It stinks. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 18:01 | history | answered | artem | CC BY-SA 4.0 |