|
A reasoning that doesnt require (too much) arrogance: contracts and business rules hold despite changes in context. Plans change, people leave, things are forgotten. But the contract, and its limitations, go on. Since amazon was only looking to get its investment back, but not a profit, then clearly the intent of both parties was to eventually have it release to the public. Whoever on amazon’s side pushed the deal presumably thought they would be sold, but it clearly didn’t happen. It’s much more likely this has been sitting on a backburner somewhere, left as some forgotten plan, than some kind of long-term strategy to induce sales. Thus, by virtue of an ill-written contract, we’ve entered a situation that no one wants. Amaxon no longer cares about it, the museum presumably prefers releasing it, and the public can only benefit from it. By virtue of that same contract, there’s an escape hatch that might bring us back to a state where everyone is content. It would make sense to exploit it. Ofc, this is assuming Amazon doesn’t care. But amazon is a company, and the larger a company is, the less distinguishable it is from a government. And governments certainly have control over things it has collectively forgotten about, as it only rarely operates a single, like-minded, cooperative organism. And amazon is indeed a very large company. It would hardly be unsurprising for Amazon to not even be aware this contract still exists. |