Small Traditions LLC/SCANDAL UPDATE

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

They buy out other auction sites just so they can either shut them down or prevent them from growing into greater threats in the future. It is almost certainly the most important factor in keeping them in the position they're still in today. This is eBay's modus operandi.

Much like bribery though, isn't it. It only works when the other party accepts the bribe.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

Much like bribery though, isn't it. It only works when the other party accepts the bribe.

Not really, offering to buy someone out, and them accepting, is legal.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by BobC

Not really, offering to buy someone out, and them accepting, is legal.

Sorry if the point wasn't clear. Let me try to make it simpler.

Bribery only works when the party that is offered the bribe accepts.
Buying another company only works when the company that is offered the buyout accepts.

Does that help?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

Sorry if the point wasn't clear. Let me try to make it simpler.

Bribery only works when the party that is offered the bribe accepts.
Buying another company only works when the company that is offered the buyout accepts.

Does that help?

No need, I got the gist of what you were implying and merely sought to remind others that your commentary was a bit misaligned. If you would actually look up the correct legal definition of the word "bribery" you'd see that it pertains to the offering, giving, receiving or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty.

The word/term also usually carries with it an illegal, or at least negative, connotation, which I assumed you were trying to imply in some way to Ebay's actions in regards to their acquisitions of other companies over the years. Otherwise, why use the specific word/term "bribery"? Regardless of what Ebay's motive's may have been for any of their business acquisitions, not a single one of them involved giving anything of value to an individual or person in an attempt to influence anyone's actions in regards to any public or legal duties. A business is not actually an individual or person, so by definition, you can't actually bribe a company/business. In the way you are attempting to apply the word/term "bribery", it is akin to someone posting on the B/S/T forum that they are looking for something in particular, and someone responds they have what that person is looking for, they negotiate and arrive at an agreed upon value/price, payment in whatever agreed upon form takes place, and the item's ownership and possession passes from the seller to the buyer. Which is basically the same steps and things that happen when one company buys another. Except, I don't ever remember in all my years anyone ever saying or referring to any seller from off the B/S/T, just like in my example, as having been bribed!!! I believe the average person would simply refer to that as "doing business".

Now, does that help you?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by BobC

The word/term also usually carries with it an illegal, or at least negative, connotation, which I assumed you were trying to imply in some way to Ebay's actions in regards to their acquisitions of other companies over the years.

Then you would have totally assumed incorrectly. I was not implying that, though you may have inferred it.

My point was made in reference to a SELLER selling the company. Ebay cannot acquire all these companies if the seller doesn't want to sell. It's not totally on ebay that they were able to buy up all these other companies (assuming no other nefarious leveraging going on). The ebay post seemed to be a 'piling on' post from a previous number of posts about 'big companies' and how they act. You are correct though in the difference being that an 'attempt to purchase' is not illegal where an attempt to bribe is.

Just trying, like others have stated, to be a bit 'objective'.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Taylor's point is simply that eBay's purported strategy takes two to tango. The analogy to bribery probably wasn't the best one because it's so loaded.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think Taylor's point is simply that eBay's purported strategy takes two to tango. The analogy to bribery probably wasn't the best one because it's so loaded.

Correct. And better said. Thanks!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

Then you would have totally assumed incorrectly. I was not implying that, though you may have inferred it.

My point was made in reference to a SELLER selling the company. Ebay cannot acquire all these companies if the seller doesn't want to sell. It's not totally on ebay that they were able to buy up all these other companies (assuming no other nefarious leveraging going on). The ebay post seemed to be a 'piling on' post from a previous number of posts about 'big companies' and how they act. You are correct though in the difference being that an 'attempt to purchase' is not illegal where an attempt to bribe is.

Just trying, like others have stated, to be a bit 'objective'.

Taylor,

As Peter already said, it takes two to tango, and I 100% agree. That's why I was a bit perplexed when you made the bribery comparison. That wording, with the negative and illegal bribery connotations, goes opposite to the point I thought you were trying to make. It puts Ebay right back in everyone's crosshairs as the bad guys, now for bribing people on top of everything else they already were disliked for. I'm actually with you, just concerned you made your point a little awkwardly. All good.

[Republicaninmass]

Ok, they cut their nose to spite their face.


"Since PWCC was going to open a marketplace, we risked libel and kicked them off our platform"

I aint buying it