Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwawaylinux 1282 days ago
Contract law is pretty comprehensive and has been forged over centuries by scammers and grifters, I doubt there would be much new here.

This doesn't sound like it's retroactive, they're negotiating a renewal and Google changed their price. Doesn't seem out of the ordinary unless there were some particular terms about pricing and renewals.

Google isn't a charity, they're a greedy non-ethical corporation that is not famous for providing reliable consistent products. I'm surprised this kind of behavior comes as a surprise to anybody in tech.
2 comments
ceejayoz 1282 days ago
I mean, if the .com registry said to Google “renewals are $10B for Google.com or we let someone else have the domain”, that would border on extortion. People build brands on these, and it’s odd that you can’t permanently buy one or at least have a predictable cap on price increases.
link
throwawaylinux 1282 days ago
> I mean, if the .com registry said to Google “renewals are $10B for Google.com or we let someone else have the domain”, that would border on extortion.

I don't think it would be extortion, it would just be Verisign breaching their agreement with ICANN.

> People build brands on these, and it’s odd that you can’t permanently buy one or at least have a predictable cap on price increases.

I think you could have those things if you use services that are backed with appropriate contracts or regulations. It's more odd that people would build their brand using a company that is not known for providing stable, consistent, long term products and services.

link
lupire 1282 days ago
Look up "unconscionable", a tenet of contract law.

A classic example is creating a dependency and then raising the price.

Also look up "antitrust".

link
throwawaylinux 1282 days ago
> A classic example is creating a dependency and then raising the price.

Okay let's see your example then. What's a case you are thinking of that is vaguely similar to this that was ruled a breach of contract?

> Also look up "antitrust".

This isn't a constructive argument. I could equally just rebut it by telling you to look up "antitrust", right? What part of antitrust laws would apply here? Surely if you have an idea you can write a sentence or two to explain.

link