Difference between revisions of "Verdict:Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f/1"
From cm2.liecourt.com
(Edited with WSForm) |
(Edited with WSForm) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Verdict | {{Verdict | ||
| + | |Role=Juror | ||
| + | |Workflow=Workflow/185 | ||
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f | |Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f | ||
| − | |||
|User=User:Isophist | |User=User:Isophist | ||
| − | |||
|Name=Juror 2 | |Name=Juror 2 | ||
| − | | | + | |Truth=yes |
| + | |Truth percentage=80 | ||
| + | |Truth text=Companies don't have the same incentives to invest in new technology because the standard is mandatory and everyone uses it. | ||
| + | |Whole truth=no | ||
| + | |Whole truth percentage=90 | ||
| + | |Whole truth text=Issues such as safety are as important as economic incentives | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth=no | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth percentage=90 | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth text=It is an oversimplified position, likely intentionally so | ||
| + | |Deceit=The innovation argument can be cover for anti-competitive practices, such as raising technology switching costs | ||
| + | |Deceit percentage=75 | ||
| + | |Deceit text= | ||
| + | |Deceit intended=yes | ||
| + | |Deceit intended percentage=60 | ||
| + | |Deceit intended text=It may not be maliciously intended but it is intentional | ||
| + | |Motivation=Primarily self interest | ||
| + | |Motivation percentage=90 | ||
| + | |Motivation text= | ||
| + | |Social acceptability=Unacceptable | ||
| + | |Social acceptability percentage=60 | ||
| + | |Social acceptability text=An argument could be made against stifling innovation but it would require something more than a sound byte to explain it | ||
| + | |Label=Innovation and standardization have an uneasy relationship | ||
| + | |Label percentage=95 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 26 October 2022
Not permitted
