Next time you see a cop on the street, you should say that you didn't purchase the liabilities when you bought drugs around the corner.
How is this not prosecuted immediately?
Despicable
If this is allowed to sit, then any small/medium tech company could promise the world to their customers, then just "sell" the company to a family member without the "liabilities" and there would be no recourse.
That all said, I'm launching my new company "infinite money glitch". For 0.1 BTC for a life time subscription we'll send you 0.01 BTC back every month. Don't worry about the sale of the company planned in a few months to my cousin, trust me bro.
However, if they have also had contracts with customers assigned to them I would have thought they would have to fulfil their side of the contract.
And their argument is that they were not made aware of these contracts, which to me sounds like the new owners should be suing the old owners for lack of responsible disclosure. Unless of course they signed away this right as part of the contract, or they were aware and don't have a leg to stand on.
In any case, this is super fishy.
It seems really unlikely that they have been assigned the contracts but not these particular contracts.
Is it the customer database?
Is it the IP / domain of the server?
Is it the website that promised it and hosted the contract?
Is it the ownership of the app code rights?
Because if you think more about it, there is some potential gap here in copyleft licenses which might need to be fixed to protect projects against companies abusing this methodology.
Should we tie liabilities to contracts therefore to customer data instead of apps and codes of apps? Is this a glitch in the democratic law that needs to be fixed by the legislatives?
In European law liabilities are tied to the legal entities, meaning that there is a transitioning phase of 5 years of the liquidation process until an entity can be sold off by the liquidator, and within that time frame customers must file their complaints/liabilities against the legal entity if e.g. they want their money back. That is unless a judicative / court decides otherwise and puts responsibility onto the owners if there is illegal ownership behavior (e.g. fraud) that was provable.
Yes, this is very likely the outcome. It will just be another perk in the consequence-free world of corporate governance.
They probably wouldn't if they had known, so I guess the seller may left some information out.
Otherwise, no one would ever declare bankruptcy. They'd just say, "If I pay I'll go bankrupt, so I won't pay."
* Non-profits
* Clubs
* Academic organizations
* Educational / semi-educational companies
* ...
The key thing to remember is that the whole of the universe isn't transactional.
And the right thing to do for "an [organization] in need of cash," if you'd like to see them continue, might be to... give them cash. It might also be the right thing if you'd like an organization to be able to bootstrap and not be under the pressure of investors. There are fine reasons to keep some organizations private and customer-funded (especially if the founder has a strong moral backbone).
Anyway I wonder what the EUL said, was there tiny print that stated something like "we can cancel your subscription at any time" or maybe "after X years of use or non-use" ?
VPNSecure deactivated all lifetime subscribers
phyzix5761•8mo ago
flotzam•8mo ago
robertlagrant•8mo ago
flotzam•8mo ago
robertlagrant•8mo ago
anon373839•8mo ago
razakel•8mo ago
dragonwriter•8mo ago
This can happen in bankruptcy, particularly, but that's not the only way it happens.
tledakis•8mo ago
IAmBroom•8mo ago
They're lying.