- Last Active
The home buying and selling analogy as a general thing is hard to use as ultimately any deal depends on its contract. If you find black mould (I’m in the UK) after you’ve bought, it could be your survey didn’t pick up the damp or you didn’t see it. That would be down you. However, if you asked the seller, perhaps thinking the property might have damp, if the property suffers from mould and the seller says no, knowing there is, that is a misrepresentation so an actionable matter. As I imagine you’re in the US you’d immediately rush off to court claiming billions in damages! In the Twitter/Musk case, and assuming the contract contains the relevant provisions, the questions which have to be answered are (1) can Twitter identify spam and bot accounts and (2) if it can, has it passed the information along. Musk, if he has been given the data is responsible for sifting it to answer his own questions, this being part of his due diligence. Is it, perhaps some buyer’s remorse that having offered the amount per share he did, the value of the shares has dropped, making his purchase not seem such a good idea. This flipping and flopping merely brings the share price down further, so the gamble is to sue, bring the price right down and then re-bid. Neat.
At a simpler level, why should Apple open up access to its, no doubt, extremely expensive and secure systems? These are systems for which the buying public expects to have at no direct cost (you buy a device and pay for an app, with all that infrastructure in place). Why on earth should Apple give free reign to anyone to circumvent all that? It is because Apple has a chunk of money which it has rightly earned, and others feel aggrieved because they have less. I certainly would not want Apple to open up to all comers. One of my reasons for using Apple products is the knowledge that my personal information is secure. Other companies are nowhere near as good.