Microsoft reveals its rejected Start menu redesigns (theverge.com)

I don't know how this can be legal at all, the liabilities are against the company and not the owners - and nothing changed about the company. When they purchased the company, it's name/trademark, the customer base, software, etc, they also purchased the liabilities. The only way I can think you can avoid purchasing the liabilities is to go into bankruptcy.

If this is allowed to sit, then any small/medium tech company could promise the world to their customers, then just "sell" the company to a family member without the "liabilities" and there would be no recourse.

That all said, I'm launching my new company "infinite money glitch". For 0.1 BTC for a life time subscription we'll send you 0.01 BTC back every month. Don't worry about the sale of the company planned in a few months to my cousin, trust me bro.

throwaway290 · 3h ago

And any promise like "we won't sell your data and where you browse" is probably also a liability. Something to think about...

sschueller · 2h ago

Bayer is trying to do the same thing after purchasing Monsanto. Same at Dow after the acquisition of Union Carbide.

Despicable

phyzix5761 · 3h ago

When you buy a company you buy all of its contractual obligations. You don't get to choose to not honor some of them without legal repercussions.

dragonwriter · 2h ago

That’s true, which is often a reason that people don't buy failing companies at all, instead buying selected assets (including things like the trademarks and brands) and letting the actual original company go out of business.

This can happen in bankruptcy, particularly, but that's not the only way it happens.

flotzam · 2h ago

They're saying they didn't buy the company - just some assets they liked, among them an intangible one: the brand...

robertlagrant · 2h ago

Yes, this is it. What is a company? Can you buy all the fun stuff and leave the liabilities?

flotzam · 2h ago

For unencumbered assets I don't see why not, but extending this logic to the brand seems fraudulent: It's unlike other assets because the (original) company crafted it to represent the whole service in the mind of the customer.

anon373839 · 1h ago

I’m curious to know what the announcements to existing customers said when they were transferred to the new company. I doubt it read: “the company you signed up with is bankrupt, but we cherry-picked its assets - want to go with us?”

robertlagrant · 2h ago

Yes, I agree. But I can see how it's nebulous if you peer closely enough that you can't see the wood for the trees.

razakel · 1h ago

The company that bought it is owned by the same guy. He knows it's bullshit.

tledakis · 1h ago

yes, what happened to due diligence? sounds like a BS excuse to cancel the subs.

tuga2099 · 2h ago

Get away from lifetime deals of services that have monthly spendings, like VPN providers, that pay for dedicated servers and bandwidth on a monthly basis.

Mo3 · 2h ago

I never got lifetime subscriptions even when it would've made financial sense. What defines a lifetime? Definitely not my lifetime... Offering them is a way to raise quick capital in my mind, it's not an economical benefit to them, it's a company in need of cash. And that possibly implies something about the expected lifetime of the lifetime subscription.

NhanH · 39m ago

Lifetime is always product or company lifetime

mattio · 2h ago

The company must remain profitable, otherwise it will bankrupt, right. I wonder what a better path forward was. Perhaps their T&C allow to lower through put of the LT-subscriptions and offer an upgrade to breakeven on LT-subs.

trklausss · 2h ago

Or you know, honor the contracts that were already in place, and any new contracts get a temporal subscription instead of a lifelong one... Otherwise they shouldn't have bought the assets.

TheChaplain · 1h ago

> Otherwise they shouldn't have bought the assets.

They probably wouldn't if they had known, so I guess the seller may left some information out.