From your example, its a little difficult to give a good answer. It all depends upon your situation and the details are crucial.
There is no moral obligation to warn a person of minimal danger or where such a warning might endanger yourself. I believe both situations apply to your own.
While there is no moral obligation, it does question the application of ethics within business. Is it ok to do X to get $? In business, the answer appears to almost always be YES as long as it is legal. In some it is YES as long as you don't get caught. And even in others it is YES as long as the punishment is so small and the benefit so great, or the cost of someone to press charges so great and their recovery so small, etc.
What you are facing is the situation where X owes you $. Y is offering X $. You ask if you are obligated to tell Y. Y's actions will likely get X to pay you, therefore, from a business ethics standpoint, you are in the clear. Also, since the simple moral question is rather light risk and also likely to punish yourself, there is no moral duty.
Legally, who cares. 99% of illegal business activity that occurs is never challenged. Also, most of the minutia are STATE laws and therefore change upon your location and the location of the two other companies in question. In general, if you act in a manner that is moral and ethical then you're likely legal *enough* that nobody will come after you.
Personally, if this is about vengeance and not about getting paid, then you had best stay quiet. If this is about getting paid, and you feel you have a reasonable method that will make it so, then you are likely clear for "business-level ethics". Of course, some people aren't comfortable with that lowered standard.
First, if you call the client and threaten to report the non-payment to the financial backers unless you get paid, you are most likely engaging in extortion, a crime.
For a person who claims to not give out legal advice it just sounds like you did Mark. From how you phrased it, you are likely guilty of poor judgement, not a crime. Plus this is state dependent.
The difference in the original example is that of motivation. If you're just going to the VCs to screw this company that's one thing, if you're going with the hopes of getting yourself paid somehow, then that's another. One is vengeance, the other is business. Of course, the needs of vengeance may well be served via the legitimate needs of business, but that's your own ethical trap for you to contemplate.
Second, if you just go ahead and call and report the non-payment, your goal is clearly to interfere with the existing relationship between the company and its backers.
Not if you go and ask them when they are considering funding the company because you're going w/o payment for X weeks. You are simply asking a question. Oh...and of course they know you haven't been paid.
You might have an obligation to speak up, if you have any kind of relationship with the financial backers, or if you made some statements to them, or if you are aware that your name and reputation were represented to the backers in order to get the funding.
This is key. If you KNOW the backers or if they are acting based upon work you've provided or are creating then you have a legitimate duty to these people. Again, however, this cannot be about vengeance, but recovery of the funds you've "lost".
If you are not going to sue them for the money owed, then you should probably just move on and learn from the experience. If you are going to sue them, let your lawyer handle the matter, and don't try to take actions that could cause you more problems down the road.
The best advice of all. You should likely just chill and write this event down for future reference. Make a note of it and when they DO get their funding, then explain to them exactly how patient you were, how you didn't smack them around when you have the opportunity and the right, and how you want to continue working with them in the future. Explain that the $ owed and a little extra will heal the breach and you'll forgive and forget. Then, when they pay, do as you promised. Let it go man.
I get pissed at non-paying contractors/customers all the time. I take out my vengeance in small ways that are all designed to encourage payment. Like not being able to commit to deadlines 100% until paid, selling great $ saving ideas to the higher-ups and then telling them I can't do it because I haven't been paid, etc.
In the end, you do the work. As long as you do good work and can be proud of it then you have the superior position. Don't sully that by acting on an impulse or w/o forethought.
Other "religious" clubs. Supreme Court interpretation of this is that as long as you're promoting all religions represented within the population in question EQUALLY.
Just because they allow chess clubs doesn't let you promote the worship of Cthulhu or any other diety.
Only if you could 100% certify that nobody from the old Telocity still works there. They were an under-priced, under-staffed, under-skilled provider who was hoping to catch a large % of the market by only working w/ people who didn't have any trouble w/ their DSL and dumping anyone who did. See DSL Reports.
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court?
on
Fortune on Rambus
·
· Score: 1
I'm assuming that how they arrived in Federal Court was based upon USSC, Title 28 Section 1332:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1332.html
Basically it is there for people/companies who are from different states and is commonly referred to as "diversity".
Finally, as referred earlier, if the reason you are in Federal Court is diversity, then the court will be applying state law (in general) although you're in federal court.
Someone stated here that you apply state law unless there is a federal one, but that isn't exactly true. In such a case you've got a conflict of laws and it really is a battle of lawyers and judges to figure out which law applies.
Obviously if the federal law in question is directly one granted under the Constitution then Federal Law applies. However, there is a great deal of argument (and has been for half a century) about how far the Federal Government can regulate under the theory of Interstate Commerce. Last decade, the US executive branch attempted to pass laws concerning "school violence" under the theory that it affected Interstate Commerce and therefore they were allowed to pass laws to that affect.
Touchy subject. Some lawyers make their whole careers based upon conflict of laws.
has no "Fair Market Value". Something which has no value cannot be stolen and is therefore legal to circumvent.
Uhhh what? I certainly don't ever want to argue Candian law if this were true. Gapeing hole at the point where items have value to the original owner(s) but do not have "fair market value" (let's call it sentimental value).
I'm sure you're mistaken here or your own courts are as screwed in the head as those in the US.
I could see this being part of a ruling where the "property" in question is not diminished in value to the "owner" due to the "supposed theft" where there is no "Fair Market Value". Imagine it as looking at the pictures of your Aunt Millie but not taking them. However, there is just no way this is a blanket statement under the law for all situations.
Just guessing.;)
Re:Want competition? Don't grant legal monopolies!
on
The State of Broadband
·
· Score: 1
I think you're asking quite a bit out of the government in this case. Do you actually expect them to be able to resolve disputes within the bandwidth? Do you expect them to troubleshoot multi-vendor conflicts and determine who came first and who caused the problem? How do you expect for these kinds of issues to be resolved once your land rush occurrs? In the courts? Six-guns at ten paces would probably work better.
Comparisons of phone companies and other types of media always make me smile. There is something critically different about phone companies that even cable companies don't achieve. Local telco companies have a significant burden placed upon them in the form of legal responsibility (enforced from mid last century). What this has caused is a reliance upon the telephone (and local telephones) to be our preferred method of communication. Cable has no such legal burden.
There are times and places for controlled monopolies to be granted. Stating that ALL monopolies for ALL cable and ALL telephone companies be revoked is extreme and misses the point. Of course competition is good, in some cases. The problems with competition in mission-critical systems where the levels of reliability are "assumed" and not shopped for opens a significant can-of-worms.
Case in point, I had dial-up ISP for years. Occasional busies, but I could always try a few different #'s. Also, I sometimes had additional dial-ups (school, work, etc.) that could always be used. I was NEVER off the net when I wanted to be, but I didn't really want to be there that much.
Now, not only do I WANT to be on the net, but I NEED to. Due to my work, I now need telco levels of reliability from my network access, however, I also want (and need to some level) the speed of broadband.
At this point I bring in the COMPETITION HEAVY past year of broadband providers (and I'll focus on DSL because that's the most competitive area currently). These providers dropped price and added bonuses to try and grab customers. Invariably, they would under-spend for capacity because of their attempts to compete. This led to denial of service, slow response to problems, poor quality of speed, etc. All BECAUSE of competition.
The uber-competitive person would say this is great and viva-la-free-market. However, what is missing here is that for over a year now many of us have been forced to endure sub-standard providers as well as stock-holders and investors losing money on failed providers.
In the case of certain areas it is EXPECTED that some level of service be provided. Water, Power (hah!), etc. are necessities. It is arguable that the phone is a necessity and I would back that argument in today's society. It is becoming so that the Internet will be one such necessity in the future and the government is being careful about letting it get out of hand. One way they are doing this is by placing broad-band restrictions to increase the levels of service.
When dealing w/ products that have become "necessities" it is at least justifiable (if not required) for the government to put some form of regulation on the industy. If this is via managed competition, limited monopolies, or whatever, then in this kind of market it appears appropriate.
Viewing this situation from this kind of perspective may lead to understanding for the government's actions.
Or not...:)
This is all just a question of where you are going to make your error. If paying down the debt actually makes "less" revenues appear, then you've still got less debt. If giving tax breaks makes less revenues appear, then you've got a few new luxury items for the wealthy but the same sized debt w/ less money to pay it off with.
I'd prefer my government play it safe in this case.
I'm wearing my -4 Helm of Idiocy today but...
Just a point of Economics here. One of the economic theories that applies here is that taxation is to be directed toward "disposable" income. This means that it is supposed to hit the money you spend on yachts harder that the money you spend on food.
This is why a sliding scale of %'s exists on income. Certainly it fails badly in many areas because of geographic concerns (Housing in IN vs. CA).
The flat-tax angle must disagree w/ that premise if it is to hold true.
I for one, while appreciating the simicity a flat tax proposes, do not believe that taxing my dollar for food is the same as taxing my dollar on my Lexus. Therefore, i cannot agree.
Slashdot Mirror
From your example, its a little difficult to give a good answer. It all depends upon your situation and the details are crucial.
There is no moral obligation to warn a person of minimal danger or where such a warning might endanger yourself. I believe both situations apply to your own.
While there is no moral obligation, it does question the application of ethics within business. Is it ok to do X to get $? In business, the answer appears to almost always be YES as long as it is legal. In some it is YES as long as you don't get caught. And even in others it is YES as long as the punishment is so small and the benefit so great, or the cost of someone to press charges so great and their recovery so small, etc.
What you are facing is the situation where X owes you $. Y is offering X $. You ask if you are obligated to tell Y. Y's actions will likely get X to pay you, therefore, from a business ethics standpoint, you are in the clear. Also, since the simple moral question is rather light risk and also likely to punish yourself, there is no moral duty.
Legally, who cares. 99% of illegal business activity that occurs is never challenged. Also, most of the minutia are STATE laws and therefore change upon your location and the location of the two other companies in question. In general, if you act in a manner that is moral and ethical then you're likely legal *enough* that nobody will come after you.
Personally, if this is about vengeance and not about getting paid, then you had best stay quiet. If this is about getting paid, and you feel you have a reasonable method that will make it so, then you are likely clear for "business-level ethics". Of course, some people aren't comfortable with that lowered standard.
First, if you call the client and threaten to report the non-payment to the financial backers unless you get paid, you are most likely engaging in extortion, a crime.
For a person who claims to not give out legal advice it just sounds like you did Mark. From how you phrased it, you are likely guilty of poor judgement, not a crime. Plus this is state dependent. The difference in the original example is that of motivation. If you're just going to the VCs to screw this company that's one thing, if you're going with the hopes of getting yourself paid somehow, then that's another. One is vengeance, the other is business. Of course, the needs of vengeance may well be served via the legitimate needs of business, but that's your own ethical trap for you to contemplate. Second, if you just go ahead and call and report the non-payment, your goal is clearly to interfere with the existing relationship between the company and its backers.
Not if you go and ask them when they are considering funding the company because you're going w/o payment for X weeks. You are simply asking a question. Oh...and of course they know you haven't been paid.
You might have an obligation to speak up, if you have any kind of relationship with the financial backers, or if you made some statements to them, or if you are aware that your name and reputation were represented to the backers in order to get the funding.
This is key. If you KNOW the backers or if they are acting based upon work you've provided or are creating then you have a legitimate duty to these people. Again, however, this cannot be about vengeance, but recovery of the funds you've "lost".
If you are not going to sue them for the money owed, then you should probably just move on and learn from the experience. If you are going to sue them, let your lawyer handle the matter, and don't try to take actions that could cause you more problems down the road.
The best advice of all. You should likely just chill and write this event down for future reference. Make a note of it and when they DO get their funding, then explain to them exactly how patient you were, how you didn't smack them around when you have the opportunity and the right, and how you want to continue working with them in the future. Explain that the $ owed and a little extra will heal the breach and you'll forgive and forget. Then, when they pay, do as you promised. Let it go man. I get pissed at non-paying contractors/customers all the time. I take out my vengeance in small ways that are all designed to encourage payment. Like not being able to commit to deadlines 100% until paid, selling great $ saving ideas to the higher-ups and then telling them I can't do it because I haven't been paid, etc. In the end, you do the work. As long as you do good work and can be proud of it then you have the superior position. Don't sully that by acting on an impulse or w/o forethought.
If the school allows other clubs...
Other "religious" clubs. Supreme Court interpretation of this is that as long as you're promoting all religions represented within the population in question EQUALLY.
Just because they allow chess clubs doesn't let you promote the worship of Cthulhu or any other diety.
Only if you could 100% certify that nobody from the old Telocity still works there. They were an under-priced, under-staffed, under-skilled provider who was hoping to catch a large % of the market by only working w/ people who didn't have any trouble w/ their DSL and dumping anyone who did. See DSL Reports.
I'm assuming that how they arrived in Federal Court was based upon USSC, Title 28 Section 1332:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1332.html
Basically it is there for people/companies who are from different states and is commonly referred to as "diversity".
Finally, as referred earlier, if the reason you are in Federal Court is diversity, then the court will be applying state law (in general) although you're in federal court.
Someone stated here that you apply state law unless there is a federal one, but that isn't exactly true. In such a case you've got a conflict of laws and it really is a battle of lawyers and judges to figure out which law applies.
Obviously if the federal law in question is directly one granted under the Constitution then Federal Law applies. However, there is a great deal of argument (and has been for half a century) about how far the Federal Government can regulate under the theory of Interstate Commerce. Last decade, the US executive branch attempted to pass laws concerning "school violence" under the theory that it affected Interstate Commerce and therefore they were allowed to pass laws to that affect.
Touchy subject. Some lawyers make their whole careers based upon conflict of laws.
has no "Fair Market Value". Something which has no value cannot be stolen and is therefore legal to circumvent.
;)
Uhhh what? I certainly don't ever want to argue Candian law if this were true. Gapeing hole at the point where items have value to the original owner(s) but do not have "fair market value" (let's call it sentimental value).
I'm sure you're mistaken here or your own courts are as screwed in the head as those in the US.
I could see this being part of a ruling where the "property" in question is not diminished in value to the "owner" due to the "supposed theft" where there is no "Fair Market Value". Imagine it as looking at the pictures of your Aunt Millie but not taking them. However, there is just no way this is a blanket statement under the law for all situations.
Just guessing.
I think you're asking quite a bit out of the government in this case. Do you actually expect them to be able to resolve disputes within the bandwidth? Do you expect them to troubleshoot multi-vendor conflicts and determine who came first and who caused the problem? How do you expect for these kinds of issues to be resolved once your land rush occurrs? In the courts? Six-guns at ten paces would probably work better. Comparisons of phone companies and other types of media always make me smile. There is something critically different about phone companies that even cable companies don't achieve. Local telco companies have a significant burden placed upon them in the form of legal responsibility (enforced from mid last century). What this has caused is a reliance upon the telephone (and local telephones) to be our preferred method of communication. Cable has no such legal burden. There are times and places for controlled monopolies to be granted. Stating that ALL monopolies for ALL cable and ALL telephone companies be revoked is extreme and misses the point. Of course competition is good, in some cases. The problems with competition in mission-critical systems where the levels of reliability are "assumed" and not shopped for opens a significant can-of-worms. Case in point, I had dial-up ISP for years. Occasional busies, but I could always try a few different #'s. Also, I sometimes had additional dial-ups (school, work, etc.) that could always be used. I was NEVER off the net when I wanted to be, but I didn't really want to be there that much. Now, not only do I WANT to be on the net, but I NEED to. Due to my work, I now need telco levels of reliability from my network access, however, I also want (and need to some level) the speed of broadband. At this point I bring in the COMPETITION HEAVY past year of broadband providers (and I'll focus on DSL because that's the most competitive area currently). These providers dropped price and added bonuses to try and grab customers. Invariably, they would under-spend for capacity because of their attempts to compete. This led to denial of service, slow response to problems, poor quality of speed, etc. All BECAUSE of competition. The uber-competitive person would say this is great and viva-la-free-market. However, what is missing here is that for over a year now many of us have been forced to endure sub-standard providers as well as stock-holders and investors losing money on failed providers. In the case of certain areas it is EXPECTED that some level of service be provided. Water, Power (hah!), etc. are necessities. It is arguable that the phone is a necessity and I would back that argument in today's society. It is becoming so that the Internet will be one such necessity in the future and the government is being careful about letting it get out of hand. One way they are doing this is by placing broad-band restrictions to increase the levels of service. When dealing w/ products that have become "necessities" it is at least justifiable (if not required) for the government to put some form of regulation on the industy. If this is via managed competition, limited monopolies, or whatever, then in this kind of market it appears appropriate. Viewing this situation from this kind of perspective may lead to understanding for the government's actions. Or not... :)
This is all just a question of where you are going to make your error. If paying down the debt actually makes "less" revenues appear, then you've still got less debt. If giving tax breaks makes less revenues appear, then you've got a few new luxury items for the wealthy but the same sized debt w/ less money to pay it off with.
I'd prefer my government play it safe in this case.
I'm wearing my -4 Helm of Idiocy today but... Just a point of Economics here. One of the economic theories that applies here is that taxation is to be directed toward "disposable" income. This means that it is supposed to hit the money you spend on yachts harder that the money you spend on food. This is why a sliding scale of %'s exists on income. Certainly it fails badly in many areas because of geographic concerns (Housing in IN vs. CA). The flat-tax angle must disagree w/ that premise if it is to hold true. I for one, while appreciating the simicity a flat tax proposes, do not believe that taxing my dollar for food is the same as taxing my dollar on my Lexus. Therefore, i cannot agree.