Your comment proves you don’t understand what’s happening. At all.
Trump defamed someone. That’s a civil issue. He was put on trial. On a civil trial. Because it’s a civil issue. He lost. He got fined. Not sent to jail. Because it’s a civil trial.
A bunch of text, all of it unrelated to the question.
Trump lost a civil trial, SBF lost a criminal trial.
You can’t be sent to jail for breaking civil laws.
Your bones are broken then, because that’s just straight up not how it works.
Trump was fined because it was a civil trial that he lost. In this instance. His criminal trials are ongoing.
SBF is getting locked up because it was a criminal trial that he lost.
I had no idea, thanks for the info
That’s on the tv manufacturers though, it’s their choice.
Oh I know, but I do think anti-trust would require an erection of some sort of barrier. Say, if HDMI required that if HDMI is present, displayport cannot be.
Right now, tv makers are complete free to choose.
Doesn’t mean displayport can’t be used there.
If the tv maker wanted to not pay licensing fees, they could put a displayport on the thing. But they don’t. Their call.
That’s not the point of my comment, the point is that whatever hdmi is, it’s got very healthy competition, so there’s no real reason for anti-trust stuff
But displayport exists, is widely used and is free?
I’m pretty sure that’s kinda exactly what happened though, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was just that no one thought to add a logo because engineers don’t care about shit like that (at least a lot of them don’t)
My bad, of course, not sure why the defamation trial was still in my head.
SBF engaged in things like securities fraud as well, which is harder to spin into a civil thing I guess.
My bet on why they decided to go the civil route is that Trump has the money to make things right (if he will that’s another thing), and SBF has nothing.
So they’ve just decided to go the “better for everybody” route, since, well, it’s better for everybody.