I’d separate two questions here: whether the article’s evidence is representative, and whether the conduct it describes would be tolerated from a smaller company or an individual.
Can we stop acting like selective quoting from discovered materials gives us an unbiased and factual representation of the truth? The plaintiff is always trying to cherry-pick and distort elements from discovered material. And this is exactly why every large corporation without exception tries to train their employees to not draw conclusions of law in discoverable written materials. A computer science professor does not have the requisite knowledge to determine that some act was "theft of labor" nor the knowledge required to contextualize that "in human history".
I’d separate two questions here: whether the article’s evidence is representative, and whether the conduct it describes would be tolerated from a smaller company or an individual.
The law, as practiced in the United States, protects but does not bind elites, whereas the law binds but does not protect the lower classes.
Which is basically Wilhoit's Law, an attempt to define conservatism.
If there is one fundamental problem with our society it is this.
Mercy for the rich. Justice for the poor.
A healthy society does the opposite, those with much should be held to higher standards.
No, a healthy society shows mercy to the innocent, and enacts justice on the guilty.
Can we stop acting like selective quoting from discovered materials gives us an unbiased and factual representation of the truth? The plaintiff is always trying to cherry-pick and distort elements from discovered material. And this is exactly why every large corporation without exception tries to train their employees to not draw conclusions of law in discoverable written materials. A computer science professor does not have the requisite knowledge to determine that some act was "theft of labor" nor the knowledge required to contextualize that "in human history".