Slashdot Mirror

It sounds like a good idea to fund technology that will improve our lives, but when the government uses public money to fund research that will eventually lead to large private profits by paying for the financial risk of researching the technology, it is corporate welfare.

You may like the technology, but corporate welfare is a huge drain on the treasury that only makes the rich richer, borders on socialism, and forces the taxpayer to take the fall for technology that won't work for private businesses.

More information on corporate welfare can be found here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

This is a typical case of frivolous lawsuits. There are, unsurprisingly, rules against this. If anyone actually fights it out in court, I expect that the Court would in fact grant attorneys fees to Google or the other defendants/counter-plaintiffs, as they have done in other cases. There is precedent for this which is binding in California.

In fact, some courts would consider this a SLAPP case (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), trying to restrict the free speech rights of the critics of the web site. Anti-SLAPP suits are great because attorneys fees are automatically granted if you win.

The problem is the up-front cost of litigation. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done until at least one case goes through the courts. BUT, in the past, some people have been prevented by judgement from suing anyone else, because they were "court abusers." Hopefully this will happen to Mr. Novak.

Oh, and if Slashdot is sued, I'd be happy to help with the defense. I'm no litigator, but writing the reply brief to this would be entertainment, not work.

Thalia

Heinlein is morally right with this quote, but has recently become factually incorrect: NAFTA's Chapter 11 guarantees current corporate revenue streams.

Also Agreed! I recommend Congress Watch at citizen.org. They have no shame in their progressive bias', but its a great resource for finding your representatives, and seeing summaries of current legislation, and voting history.

Ford Motor Company has officially and unconditionally conceded its complete, utter, and perpetual loss on the merits of the FORD v. 2600 "FuckGeneralMotors.com" case. Ford has dismissed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, meaning that Ford has completely given up all attempts to reverse the victory that 2600 Enterprises won on December 20, 2001. The mutually agreed dismissal papers were officially entered by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2002.

In the words of another FORD from Michigan -- former President Gerald Ford, "Our long national nightmare is over."

2600, which has given up nothing other than an extremely improbable claim for getting its attorneys' fees back from FORD, has expressly reserved the right to point "FuckGeneralMotors.com" anyplace whatsoever that 2600 pleases -- including at the FORD homepage -- at any time whatsoever, with or without notice.

Of course, the plan in March, 2001, when the lawsuit arose, was to point the address someplace more suitable than the FORD homepage, probably as soon as mid-April or early May, 2001. In other words, the lawsuit has actually delayed 2600's prior plans (several other domain names that were part of the same project have been re-pointed several times, while FuckGeneralMotors.com has remained pointed at FORD). Now that the lawsuit has been won, 2600 will be soliciting suggestions during the H2K2 conference, for the best place to point the Domain Name. Ultimately, this just proves how silly and counterproductive FORD's litigation strategy always has been from the beginning.

In December, 2001, Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed FORD's lawsuit in its entirety for "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" -- which means that even assuming every single allegation in FORD's pleadings to be true (but the allegations weren't all true), FORD still had no legal right whatsoever to prohibit 2600 from pointing FuckGeneralMotors.com at FORD's homepage.

Needless to say, FORD did not like that outcome. Neither did a lot of other intellectual property interests all over the world. Indeed, a google search will reveal a number of PowerPoint(tm) presentations published on the Web (e.g., http://austlii.edu.au/ hkitlaw/resources/Pun_IP.pdf) by various intellectual property lawyers, emphasizing that the decision is being appealed. Well, now it isn't.

The decision stands. It is published at 177 F. Supp. 2d 661. And it is binding precedent. The decision has even been cited by the Sixth Circuit already, in an interim order that was issued in the "TaubmanSucks" case handled by Paul Levy of Public Citizen. http://www.citizen.org/documents/TaubDecision-3-11 -02.pdf .

When FORD filed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in January, 2002, FORD sought to have the case reinstated so that FORD could take it to trial. 2600 filed a cross-appeal, solely on the issue of whether FORD should be required to reimburse 2600 for its legal bills (such fee awards, in cases under the Lanham Trademark Act, are not especially common and occur only in "exceptional" cases -- so the Sixth Circuit was likely to defer to Judge Cleland's decision to award 2600 its "costs" but not its attorneys' fees). 2600 still gets to take its "costs" back from FORD, and our lawyer is preparing to serve a deposition notice on Bill Ford, to gather the information necessary to garnish FORD's bank accounts, unless FORD cuts us a reimbursement check forthwith.

But the key point is that 2600's victory is permanent and FORD has voluntarily foregone any appeals. The savings, in terms of attorneys' fees, from our standpoint, are enormous.

By its own corporate standards, McDonald's sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. Likewise, a scientist testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees.

During trial, McDonald's admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's received at least 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks. In addition, many of these claims were settled for up to $500,000.

Witnesses for McDonald's testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company's required temperature. McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

Public Citizen is one. Among other things, they campaign heavily to for campaign finance reform. They're a non-profit organization started by Ralph Nader.

-- Agthorr

Public Citizen is one. Among other things, they campaign heavily to for campaign finance reform. They're a non-profit organization started by Ralph Nader.

-- Agthorr

I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.

I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.

Enron fell despite the fact that the govt tried their damned best to keep it propped up

No they didn't.

You can say the opposite until you're blue in the face but that doesn't make it true. The Bush government could have done a great deal more to help Enron but chose not to. That doesn't mean they didn't help them at all, clearly they did but the government clearly refused to bail out Enron. The government has bailed out companies in as much or worse trouble than Enron was in, such as LTCM previously mentioned. They chose not to do that for Enron.

I very much doubt Kenneth lay would agree with your assesment that he had "an extremely helpful government".

Most likely not, politicians all over the world have been busy selling out the little guys rights to big corporations for the last few decades. See stuff like MAI and fast track

No I'd rather have the wife of a Senator on my board, so he can tack a major deregulation law onto another bill.

Not to sound too much like an IndyMedia posting... But, there have been allegations of serious conflicts of interest in the selection and design of this site.
Here is one report.

I won't discuss the issue, as I feel that the discussion that is already posted is VERY good. I hope that everyone will read some of the great responses to this article.

Here is a good website discussion the issues concerning world trade. They are against, mind you.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/index.cfm

Too bad that, in most cases, companies don't clean themselves up; they convince local government to establish c o r p o r a t e 'wealthfare' programs that force the public's tax money to foot the bill for whatever maintenance and equipment is needed to reach standards set by environmental regulations.

from indymedia.org

Because of the way [NAFTA's] Chapter 11 is being used, "the balance of power between sovereign nations and corporations has shifted against governments, providing significant economic and legal strategic leverage to corporations," said Lydia Lazar, assistant dean at Chicago-Kent College of Law and an expert on NAFTA law.

from
the NAFTA index:

Percentage of Americans who believe that it is "very important" that environmental and labor standards are included in trade agreements: 72(44)
The number of months before Canada passed a public health law banning the import of the U.S.- based Ethyl Corporation's gasoline additive MMT that the company announced its intention to use NAFTA to sue Canada for damages, should it enact the legislation: 7(45)
The number of days after Canada banned the import of its gasoline additive, MMT, that Ethyl Corporation filed its suit: 5(46)
The amount of money the Canadian government paid the Ethyl Corporation in damages: $13 million(47)
Number of countries world-wide in which gasoline producers use the Ethyl Corporation's MMT: 1 (Canada)(48)
Number of known cases initiated NAFTA's investor right-to-sue-governments provisions, since the provision went into effect in 1996: 4(49)
Number of cases in which investor is challenging an environmental law: 4(50)

from indymedia.org

Because of the way [NAFTA's] Chapter 11 is being used, "the balance of power between sovereign nations and corporations has shifted against governments, providing significant economic and legal strategic leverage to corporations," said Lydia Lazar, assistant dean at Chicago-Kent College of Law and an expert on NAFTA law.

from
the NAFTA index:

Percentage of Americans who believe that it is "very important" that environmental and labor standards are included in trade agreements: 72(44)
The number of months before Canada passed a public health law banning the import of the U.S.- based Ethyl Corporation's gasoline additive MMT that the company announced its intention to use NAFTA to sue Canada for damages, should it enact the legislation: 7(45)
The number of days after Canada banned the import of its gasoline additive, MMT, that Ethyl Corporation filed its suit: 5(46)
The amount of money the Canadian government paid the Ethyl Corporation in damages: $13 million(47)
Number of countries world-wide in which gasoline producers use the Ethyl Corporation's MMT: 1 (Canada)(48)
Number of known cases initiated NAFTA's investor right-to-sue-governments provisions, since the provision went into effect in 1996: 4(49)
Number of cases in which investor is challenging an environmental law: 4(50)

This sort of abridgment of freedom and individual liberties has become the hallmark of modern trade agreements. Corporations making big campaign contributions have taken control of the process, and have pushed the US Trade Representative to introduce all sorts of undemocratic and unethical provisions to trade agreements in secret negotiating sessions totally closed to public scrutiny or accountability. This is why there have been massive protests in Seattle, Quebec, and so many other places around the world.

The DMCA provisions are just one of the latest dirty little provisions added into these things. They also have provisions to gut environmental and safety standards, undermine workers rights, and prevent people from having a say over what goes into their food. US clean air laws and endangered species laws have already been overturned by international trade agreements, and now Mexico and the Bush administration are going after tractor trailer safety standards. If that doesn't seem crazy enough, consider this: the state of California is being sued under NAFTA for $900 million by a Canadian company for banning a cancer causing gasoline additive that was getting into their drinking water. Under NAFTA, as with most trade agreements, the case will be settled by a faceless dispute resolution body in a foreign country that has no accountability to the public, and conducts its operations in secret.

There is one big thing we can do right now. George W. Bush is trying to push legislation through Congress to give him the power to negotiate these agreements without any input or review from the Congress. Fast Track negotiating authority lets the president negotiate the FTAA and other trade agreements in secret, and then send it to Congress, which has 60 days to vote it up or down with no ammendmnets. 60 days is a very short period of time to sift through the details of thousands of pages of a trade agreement. The Congress has 100 legislative days (which translates into 4 or 5 months) to review executive orders that are generally much shorter and less complicated than trade agreements. Fast track is just plain wrong.

This is going to be a tight vote that will be won or lost in the House of Representatives, so any and all calls and letters to your Congressperson make a difference. You can look up who your congress person is at http://www.house.gov/writerep/

You can find more info on fast track at the followign sites:

• Sierra Club Responsible Trade Campaign
• Public Citizen Global Trade Watch
• AFLCIO Make the global economy work for families page

The problem is we've had too many multi-million-dollar judgments against corporations because some loon spilled coffee on her lap or because some idiot couldn't read the Surgeon General's Warning. These are cases where the individuals themselves were the ones who should have been held accountable, but the corporations ended up getting the blame.

This is a common misconception, and I think that the "Insightful" moderation needs a little reality check. Ms. Liebeck (the McDonald's coffee plaintiff) was hospitalized for eight days because of the coffee's temperature. She did not seek a multimillion dollar sentiment from the outset -- she merely wanted compensation for her medical bills. From http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/legalmyths/ coffee.html:

Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald's about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald's countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer...McDonald's refused all attempts to settle the case.

The "McDonald's Coffee" suit is a particularly poor example for anyone wishing to blame "individuals" for corporate ass-covering and buyouts of government.

The point here is that due to fallible human nature larger government will always result in larger corruption and pressure from corporate entities.

The point here is that due to fallible human nature larger corporations will always result in larger corruption and pressure from government entities.

Besides, corporations want government rules to hide behind when liability comes knocking. Only thing is, they also insist on writing those rules. Take Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement, for example.

All you have to do is scratch the surface to see the puss ooze. For instance;

Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.


Actually, if Hatch has balls why didn't he use them to put his name on his legislation???? See here.

Also, you can follow the history of this crap legislation here.

That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs

It is not the purpose of the constitution to "provide jobs for Disney employees". Sure, that was Disney's teary eye plea, but it doesn't wash. This is the epitome of "corporate welfare". Maybe they could think of some new ideas to sell, like the constitution intended??? See all of the pathetic arguments dealt with here and here and here and most importantly here

He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.

Actually, he doesn't have a clue. See this letter written to him.

And people who have "copyrights" don't "own" their work. It was only meant to be a temporary "right to copy". Not a perpetual "right to own". See this for a detailed history and explanation.

and what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?

I guess when Senator Hatch speaks "in favor" of the consumer as he does here in the NYT article, he pegs the BS meter now.

As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions

Oops, you're right here. This is not a "Democratic" or "Republican" issue. It's a "represent the public interest issue before those of lobbyists" issue.

It would have been a perfect troll otherwise.

assuming that the 1979 treaty exists

It certainly does exist. Responding to China's compliance with this agreement, they have so far and it is not in their best interests to act otherwise. In my previous post I mentioned that 42% of China's exports go to the United States. It is in their best interests to respect the 1979 agreement. The only thing that PNTR would guarantee is that the United States could not use trade to enforce its domestic policies on China. With respect to the WTO standing with us, it would only be useful to us if our dispute with China involved China limiting access of US goods in their Country. I argue that this is irrelevant in that most of the people of China are too poor to afford any of the items they will import from the US.

Now, this whole issue of the yearly MFN vote is just nonsense.

Not so. Many Chinese activists have noted that when China's MFN status comes up for vote, conditions improve somewhat, the government backs of a little, and people are more able to seek out information and make gains in the area of defeating oppression. The vote could be effectively used to push China towards reform. Think of it as a form of checks and balances.

...they seem very receptive to the idea of conforming to international regulations if we grant them PNTR.

"Seem" is the key word here. I am very doubtful that the amount of oppression and environmental degradation in China would not increase if the US grants them PNTR. Passage of PNTR would basically be a reward where no reward is warranted. I can only imagine the ways in which labor camps "encourage" workers to be more productive. Should the US really support and further this type of behavior?

Thanks for the comments about Cuba. The sooner that the people of the United States wake up see how ridiculous the situation is, the better! Hopefully the whole Elián Gonzáles fiasco is helping more people to realize that the US policy towards Cuban is ridiculous and shameful.

The simple reason is that they are mis-informed about both issues. PNTR advocates falsely state if the United States does no grant PNTR to China that they will not have all of the trade benefits that China will extend to other countries, most notably WTO benefits. The US and China made an agreement in 1979 that clearly states that China must extend any trade privileges to the US that it gives to other countries. This agreement still applies if the US does not grant PNTR to China, in fact, the US gives away nothing if it does not grant PNTR to China. Anyone who states otherwise regarding this agreement either has not done the proper research or is trying to skew the facts. Quite the opposite is true if the United States does pass the bill for Chinese PNTR. The first thing that the US gives away is its yearly review of trade with China based on Chinese violation of US laws such as labor laws, human rights laws, and environmental laws. The second thing that the US gives away is the ability to enforce any domestic laws relating to labor, human rights, and the environment. This is because if the US grants PNTR to China, it will have to recognize a full WTO relationship with China. As we have seen many times before, the WTO overturns domestic laws that it deems "detrimental to free trade" and would cripple US ability to sway China based on trade. Not to mention that China is a potential threat to US national security. The United States is responsible for 42% of Chinese exports, and is in essence funding China's military mobilization. If China invades Taiwan and the US enters the battle to support them, China has indicated that it would strike out against the US. US importing of Chinese goods would only increase if China were granted PNTR. Why would the US even consider doing this?

Enter multi-national business interests. Until now, many corporations have held back on opening up factories in China because if the US were to restrict Chinese trade, they would stand to lose a lot of money. If PNTR is granted to China then there is a free ticket for these corporations to open up shop in China. With the lax Chinese labor laws, many companies will close manufacturing plants in countries that have better worker's rights to move to China and increase their profit, leaving many unemployed in countries with labor standards. It seems that everything pertaining the the US government these days is wrapped up in big business. It is also these big businesses that limit access to the truth about these issues. They all spread around the same lies that the politicians believe because they are paid to. It seems that Marx's predictions about capitalism are becoming a reality in the very times in which we live. It saddens and embarrasses me that the experiment in democracy that is the United States has been turning into nothing more than a corporate illusion almost from the nation's beginning.

The embargoes against Cuba are another matter altogether. The United States has tried everything it could possibly to do remove Fidel Castro from power. Yet he is still there, out lasting eight, soon to be nine, US presidents. This reflects the general attitude of the US towards Cuba since Cuba fought Spain for its independence one hundred years ago. That attitude is of control without ownership. The US wants control over the Cuban economy and will try anything to gain it. Cuba has set the dangerous precedent of having an economy and government that benefit those in need, an idea that the US can not reconcile. Those who deserve help the most in Cuba receive it, unlike our backwards system of further rewarding those who repress others and already have too much.

This is just a brief analysis of these situations as I see them from various resources that I have come across. Here are a few of the better ones:

• ZNet search for Cuba or China
• Public Citizen

Finally, I believe that this is a big issue right now because Bill Clinton feels that he has to leave some sort of legacy. So far the only thing that he will really be remembered for is scandal and he knows it. Clinton has been a major supporter of PNTR and would love to see this pass and be the final major contribution of his presidency. I believe that if PNTR is granted to China, the US will come to regret it and Clinton will be seen for the liar that he is. Many of the people who voted for Clinton did so because of his policies on gay rights and China. Since entering office, he has changed his stance on both. It is high time for the people of the United States to begin to put their government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. On November 7, 2000, I urge the people of the United States to elect Ralph Nader as president. Only after we take back our government and force it into democracy can we begin to make meaningful change.

"Many of the protestors in Seattle are - using new technologies like the Net - beginning to do the work of politicians, regulatory agencies, legislators and journalists. Perhaps that's the real message to the WTO and the rest of the world."

This is a valid point. The first time I personally heard the 'net advocated as a tool for social change was in a tent at the 1994 Glastonbury Festival; and it was a refreshing change; yes, computers can be used as tools to bring about social and environmental change; used properly they can be extremely effective for the purpose, despite their (current) exclusivity.

The network that brought the Seattle protests into being started as a meeting of about two dozen people in a London community centre in July 1998; from three groups; Reclaim the Streets, Greenpeace (London) (no connection to Greenpeace International) - a group better known for the McLibel trial and People's Global Action.

We didn't know where it was going, but reckoned that it would be a damn good way of opposing the MAI; to use the global nature of the 'net to provide a global counter to the WTO. We got in touch with groups like the Zapatistas and Karnataka State Farmer's Association in India; and suggested an action on June the 18th 1999; to coincide with the G8 meeting in Koln (in Germany).

As the records show, we managed to get about 43 countries onboard; and there was a good feeling about it; that we'd hit upon a good way of co-ordinating resistance to the WTO; which is why a repeat action was staged in Seattle on November the 30th.

If a popular resistance is to be mounted to the WTO, the our resistance has to be as transnational as capital.

- A London J18 activist, Debian fanatic and regular /.er

Point three, that the US would protect its market from foreign competitors... Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, it cannot.

Chapter 11 allows countries to file lawsuits against the government of another NAFTA nation on the grounds that the defending nation did not give the company the exact same treatment as it would one of its own.

For more information on the implications of Chapter 11 of NAFTA, I reccommend reading this paper (Acrobat req'd)
More information available at this site.

All this aside, I don't think Microsoft is going anywhere either.

------

Point three, that the US would protect its market from foreign competitors... Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, it cannot.

Chapter 11 allows countries to file lawsuits against the government of another NAFTA nation on the grounds that the defending nation did not give the company the exact same treatment as it would one of its own.

For more information on the implications of Chapter 11 of NAFTA, I reccommend reading this paper (Acrobat req'd)
More information available at this site.

All this aside, I don't think Microsoft is going anywhere either.

------

I, for one, am very disturbed by the fact that most of the clothes I'm wearing were most likely made by underpriviledged workers, not only in third-world countries, but also here in the US. When the people have a very limited choice, when all they've been given are what they don't want, it's not necessarily their fault if they use it. It is their fault if they don't do anything about it.

I'm just afraid that the overly sensational US media is going to focus on the 20 or 30 idiots who made serious trouble, while the other 40-50K people there behaved themselves. The tension in this country has been growing at a very visible rate in the last few years and I think this is just one of the first (mostly) good outwards signs of it.

Being a (young) 20-something myself, most of the people I know (an interesting mix, seeing as I have both leftist or libertarian friends yet go to a very conservative school) are frustrated and angry about the state of politics in this country. The average person no longer has a voice, and large corporations and government institutions are working hard to make sure we have even less of a voice. Restrictions on encryption, anyone? More wiretapping capabilities built into our hardware and software? The "right" of the NSA and FBI to circumvent due process and keep people under surveillence without a warrant?

The WTO (good article here in pdf) has a track record of leveragaing their power to tromp the soverign laws of independent countries in order to make more money (article here). Powerful representatives from the US and large corporations convince small, developing nations that they need the latest whiz-bang-all-in-one products to even survive in the new world. These representatives then provide tasty soundbites wherein they ask for free trade and villify the protestors for not allowing their poor, starving country to get the best TVs out there (yes, bad example, but you get the point). It's for reasons like this that when I have kids they will never ever have Gerber baby food.

And for everyone who's been saying "Hippie, go home", RTFA (articles) before you make yourself look stupid. Thousands of people from all different walks of life are protesting this, not just a few "burnt-out acid-dropping hippies who crawled out of the woodwork", as much as you'd like to believe that. Middle-aged people who know this is a Bad Thing (TM) are right next to youth who feel they want to make a difference and are motivated to do so. Prominent figures have lent their voices to causes such as this, and the difference is starting to be felt. Previous generations had The Who, The Clash and U2 to send out the call for arms and action against the oppresive elements of their times. Today, groups like Rage Against The Machine are sending out the call to action and education to the youth of today. Do you think it's an accident their album debuted at #1 and is currently the #2 selling album in the world?? I don't think anything short of physical action on this scale (meaning large peaceful yet committed protest groups) are going to bring about the change we need.

Educate yourself. Let yourself get angry. And then do something constructive and meaningful to channel that anger. My 100% support to the protesters in Seattle. Not to mention somewhat reluctant thanks to the police out there for not allowing a re-creation of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago to occur.

-jdm

Ok, so no money exchanges hands there, it might be harder to argue in a court. But my web page now (nevermind my profile, I need to update it) is on a web server at a public university. I pay tuition and am the primary administrator of this machine -- I like to think of it as mine even though it really isn't. If I put that Nader site here, with all kinds of fun stuff like petitions and links and essays and endorsements and yadda yadda yadda, is someone supposed to pay then?

This is stupid. I can almost follow the FEC's logic: expensive equipment is being used. If you were to publish in a newspaper or run a radio or television broadcast ad, you would have to pay the publisher of that media for the space. In this case, you've already paid for it (via tuition & fees) but from a certain point of view it's the same thing.

But that's an insane point of view. Would it be better to pay by the percentage of clock cycles or disc space that goes to serving out the political page? Arguably, but it's a weak argument at best.

God I hope this doesn't stand up in court...

Nowhere is this more evident than in the pages of this month's issue, which contains 80 PCs from 32 different manufacturers. While this might sound like a lot, consider this: last year's PC blockbuster had 91 systems from 39 manufacturers. While 24 of the companies in last year's round-up also submitted systems this year, that leaves 15 that didn't, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that many aren't around anymore. Only eight new companies have submitted PCs for the first time this year.

And this is the stated evidence that PC prices are unsustainable??? That a few integrators have gone out of business? Would he care to compare this result with the US airline industry deregulation? And then to claim this relates to the upcoming failure of Moores law because high tooling costs are driving volume manufacturing, which is what's also driving low prices, is either disingenuous or blatent ignorance. If, as he says:

So for Intel to continue to be successful, each new fab must be able to pay for itself, which means building not only faster microprocessors, but also more of them. This system encourages manufacturers like Compaq, Dell and IBM to take greater and greater volumes.

And:

Unfortunately, because of the volumes, price incentives and desire to grab market share, Machrone's Law is now broken. This has led to eroding margins for suppliers and downward pressure on prices. Even Intel has had to buckle under this pressure by cutting prices on CPUs to its largest customers, Dell, Compaq and IBM. Combined with pressure from AMD at the low end for even less expensive CPUs, one has to wonder where Intel is going to get the money to continue fab development into the future.

then Intel must be stupid enough to price themselves into oblivion by charging less than cost plus profit. By any rational free market position they deserve to go out of business because of critical poor planning (if this is actually the case, which I strongly doubt). That's the whole point of a free market, otherwise we'd need a regulatory body determining price structures -- which sounds suspiciously like Socialism. Somehow I doubt the author of this would admit to being a closet Socialist, so where are these arguments heading?

There's no such thing as free software, and there's no such thing as a cheap computer. Those who say otherwise are endangering tomorrow's IT choices.

OH, now I understand. Those arguments that Intel is damaging its future with low prices are really just a straw man to prop up the argument that Free Software will destroy the "tomorrow's IT choices." By this line of argument all collective effort by groups of individuals not managed by a for profit venture are somehow damaging tomorrows potential markets. One could include Churches, private non-profit charitable organizations, food co-ops, community theater (you could have spent that time at a movie -- think of the lost film industry profits!) community sponsored parks, you name it. This line of thinking, when taken to its extreme, would tear local communities apart -- along with Internet communities. And it's frightening... just look at the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) for a good look at what multinational business stands to gain when these kinds of rules get codified into law, and why it's a great threat to worldwide democratic progress.

It would be laughable were it not representative of worldwide trends in conservative elitist think tank, and multinational corporate, popular opinion.