Re: The Onion just bought Alex Jones' Infowars

JAB <here@is.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
<wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:
>

X is not "suing" anyone, just objecting to the compelled sale of the
accounts (on the grounds that Jones never owned them, so they're not
part of the bankruptcy case ["estate" to use the bankruptcy term]).

>
Relevant Question - I follow your comments, but does state/federal
laws "trump" X  In other words, was X's contract inline with known
precedents/etc.
>
X is claiming their "Intellectual Property Licenses" are above
bankruptcy's domain....only they will decide, not the state.
 

My understanding is that a bankruptcy court (this being one of those
interesting federal courts issues re jurisdiction and source of law)
applies the bankruptcy code, which is federal, but questions about
things like the validity of contracts the business or person applying
for bankruptcy supposedly entered into, or the enforceability of
judgment debts trying to get their nose into the bankruptcy, are
State-law questions, that the bankruptcy court will have to analyze
according to the law of the state where it sits. The bankruptcy court
won't help enforce debts that, for example, are outside the relevant
State statute of limitations--those don't get allowed into the feeding
frenzy.

As Jones's bankruptcies (both personal and corporate) are being heard in
a bankrtuptcy court in Texas, I quite fully believe that X's
interpretation of its shrinkwrap EULA that nobody reads might actually
pass muster.

Also, for a techbro running one of these free (because you pay with your
~soul~ data) services, Musk's interpretation here is completely in the
norm: the EULA is not something you the user can enforce (for example,
to enable you to transfer your valuable comedy account and its followers
to someone who wants to take it over), it's just something that enforces
the site owner's right to extract data from you.