[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by wireties

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.

Of course it matters—you can't do justice to the intent of the rules if you don't know whether it was actually intentional!

Originally Posted by wireties

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?

I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.

And yes, process is important. Even if you get the right principal result from a process, its side effects and externalities can still make it a bad process.

Originally Posted by wireties

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.

"Entitled" merely means a moral, legal or other right to something. I don't think it's controversial to believe that by registering for FRC, a team is entitled to be treated equitably. At the very least, there are contractual rights created by registering. And while legally, FIRST might be able to put on a poor-quality dog and pony show, and satisfy the contract, there's a strong moral imperative that it go substantially beyond that. Every sporting tradition suggests that the officials should be fair in their application of the rules. They may not always get it correct, but it's hardly contentious that a competitor is entitled to feel wronged by an incompetent, corrupt or even innocently mistaken official.

As for the bidding process, the law recognizes that entitlement exists there too. Things you could do—but don't for practical reasons—don't diminish the remedy to which you're entitled.¹ They just make it less likely you'll ever collect it. That can actually be a good thing, if as you note, it means that you avoid a reputation for complaining, and therefore get more business. On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.

Originally Posted by wireties

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.

Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.

¹ I'm going to leave estoppel, laches and other equitable doctrines out of it; basically, in the English common law system that we're familiar with, if you're operating in good faith and satisfying your own obligations, this is true.