Slashdot Mirror

News media requesters, however, are entitled to a reduced assessment only when the request is for the purpose of disseminating information.

and

VII. Fees There is no initial fee required to submit a FOIA request; in fact, in the majority of requests made to DOJ, no fees are ever charged. The FOIA does provide for the charging of certain types of fees in some instances. For purposes of fee assessment only, the FOIA divides requesters into three categories. The first category includes commercial-use requesters, [...] The second category includes educational or noncommercial scientific institutions and representatives of the news media, who are charged only for duplication fees, and who are provided the first one hundred requested pages free of charge

@Slashdot: "There were three counts for making false statements based on the aforementioned lies"

Dear slashdot, a) he voluntarily went to the police, b) he tried to distance himself from the Tsarnaevs, c) nothing he did prevented the identification of the Tsarnaevs d) he had no involvement in the events of April 15, 2013.

"MATANOV received a telephone call from one of his regular taxicab clients, Witness 2 .. MATANOV told Witness 2 that he recognized the address as belonging to his friend"

"Witness 2 suggested that they speak to a police sergeant that Witness 2 knew .. MATANOV and Witness 2 drove to the Braintree Police Department, where they told the police that MATANOV knew Tamerlan Tsarnaev."

"MATANOV also told the detective some information that he intended to be false and misleading."

"MATANOV told the detective that he had not seen the photographs of the Tsarnaev brothers released by the FBI the previous night" ref

--
'Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested..'

Nope,
You're still not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. (Source, citing the US Civil Rights Act of 1964) This is clearly discrimination based on religion.

Andrew Wakefield was deliberately fraudulent, and that is why the paper was retracted and his medical license revoked.

Odd that Wakefield's co-author, accused of the same things, had his indictment reversed on appeal. Wakefield did not have malpractice insurance, and his appeal was denied.

And, of course, the oft-quoted Danish study was conducted by a researcher now under indictment for fraud: Paul Thorsen.

Sadly in a cases like that I kind of which it would happen to me. I can be a big enough ass hole that I would follow up with a Deprivation of rights under color of law case. As an added bonus you can go directly after the party or parties involved and they don't get government protection. I really wish more people would peruse these types of cases against government officials' overreaches.

How about you read the complaint?

Whoosh?

They didn't stop telecoms from merging either.

U.S. Moves to Block Merger Between AT&T and T-Mobile
T-Mobile Antitrust Challenge Gives AT&T Little Recourse

They didn't stop any of the airline or bank mergers that we have seen since 2009.

US government seeks to block American-US Airways merger
U.S., Filing Suit, Moves to Block Airline Merger

They didn't reign in the massive control that the insurance industry has over the consumer (indeed they gave the industry more power)

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN AND PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN OF MID-MICHIGAN ABANDON MERGER PLANS: Decision to Abandon Deal Follows Justice Department's Decision to Challenge the Acquisition
The Minimum Standards all Health Insurance Plans Sold on and Off the Exchange
Federal Insurance Office Act"
the 2010 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

This seems highly unlikely given the pro-monopoly stance that...

U.S. Moves to Block Merger of 2 Theater Ad Companies
FTC Sues To Block Sysco-US Foods Merger
U.S. Sues to Block Big Beer Merger
3M Drops Avery Dennison Unit Buyout Amid Antitrust Worry

etc

They can and do.

I've seen a lot of pro and con posts about Microsoft's place in computer history. Maybe this post will help people see it more clearly.

1. Microsoft didn't invent BASIC. BASIC was around since 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....
2. Microsoft didn't invent DOS. They bought something called QDOS and rebranded it DOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8...
3. Microsoft didn't invent ubiquitous computing. IBM created a personal computer based on the Intel 8086. But long before that there was the TRS 80, the Commodore Pet, Apple II, and for those people who preferred to roll their own hardware, there were Heathkit parts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit_H8, and http://oldcomputers.net/heathk...) to build one's own computers.
4. Before there was DOS there was CP/M which could run on Intel 8080, Zilog Z80, Motorola 6502 (it was available as a card for Apple II's). There was even a version for 8086. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M)
5. The PC industry began not with Microsoft, but with Compaq who made the first IBM PC clones. You may be too young to remember, but PCs used to be called IBM PCs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
6. Others have already pointed out that GUIs began with Xerox PARC, and the mouse itself goes back to 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos)

So what exactly did Microsoft invent? Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

1. A method of ensuring an operating system monopoly by preventing other operating systems from being preinstalled on OEM equipment.
2. A method of ensuring that OEMs cooperated by giving them a kickback if they cooperated with Microsoft's strategies.
3. A EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) making it difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to decline the license, return the software, and receive a refund for the Microsoft software they didn't want to use.

I don't believe it's immoral or wrong for folks to make their livelihood using Microsoft products, but I do think it's unwise to do business with Microsoft while being ignorant of their long history. I also think it's dishonest not to admit that the Microsoft Corporation has a long history of doing shady things to software partners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.#Browser_wars and http://www.justice.gov/atr/cas... for example) , OEM vendors, Standards Boards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML) and lastly to customers (http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf)

The US kangaroo courts operate on a principal of coerced false confession. The oppressive multitude of petty laws is used to heavily over-charge defendants. They are then offered the choice of "confessing" or spending the rest of their life in the hellish sensory deprivation torture chambers of the American gulag.

Consider that "of the 82,092 defendants terminated during Fiscal Year 2013, 75,718, or 92 percent, either pled guilty or were found guilty" and "during Fiscal Year 2013, a total of 73,397, or 97 percent,of all convicted defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial." Source: United States Attorneys' Statistical Report 2013 Only 3% of federal prisoners were convicted by an actual trial!

That someone plead guilty at an American trial is no more damming than if they had farted.

Who went to jail for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Or this: http://www.justice.gov/crimina...

From 2006 to 2010, the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia, and other drug traffickers laundered at least $881 million in illegal narcotics trafficking proceeds through HSBC Bank USA. These traffickers didnâ(TM)t have to try very hard. They would sometimes deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows in HSBC Mexicoâ(TM)s branches.

Or this: http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to report all cash transactions above $10,000 to regulators and to tell the government about other suspected money-laundering activity. Big banks employ hundreds of investigators and spend millions of dollars on software programs to scour accounts.

When people are depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars via custom boxes that fit teller slots, how the heck are you not responsible especially since laws and regulations require you to report suspected money-laundering activity?

Many people would still be alive today if the banks didn't help drug lords launder billions of dollars. Without the money their armies wouldn't be as well funded or equipped.

Public records laws do not automatically exempt PII; they would be rather useless if they did.

What?

http://www.justice.gov/sites/d...

...if a privacy interest is found to exist, the public interest in disclosure, if any, must be weighed against the privacy interest in nondisclosure. If no public interest exists, the information should be protected; as the D.C. Circuit has observed, "something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time." If there is a public interest in disclosure that outweighs the privacy interest, the information should be disclosed; if the opposite is found to be the case, the information should be withheld.

But that additional offense is a 5-year "enhancement" of the other sentence. Nowhere does that say anything about "life". So I'm wondering where the life sentence supposedly came from.

Here is a link directly to the prosecutor's statement. They claim the penalty for possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs is "5 years to life". Either way, he has already accepted a plea bargain, so it is likely in the low end of that range.

He was dumb. He took a gun with him to pick up the package at the post office. Was he really planning to have a shoot out over a $4800 package? Don't carry a gun unless you are prepared to use it. He shouldn't have even picked it up himself. Instead he should have paid some underage kid to do the pickup.

Heck, ATF agents lose dozens of guns every year...

http://www.justice.gov/oig/rep...

Over the 59-month period we tested, 76 weapons and 418 laptop
computers were lost, stolen, or missing from ATF. ATF's rate of weapons
loss per month has nearly tripled since Treasury's 2002 audit...

We also found serious deficiencies in ATF's response to these lost,
stolen, or missing items. ATF staff did not report many of the lost, stolen, or
missing weapons...

Cough Ahem sorry about that, seem to have had a tickle in my throat....

Done.

Easy, file a deprivation of rights under color of law suit. They are depriving you of your property without compensation or due process so it seems if it was caught on video it becomes a very clear case where they violated your rights. Add in the use of violence, threats of violence, or any bodily harm and it gets worse.

If you really want to put the screws to a police officer see if you can win a Depervation of rights under color of law/a> suit against them.

If you have sex with a boy in Thailand, that crime happened in Thailand.

Extraterritorial Sexual Exploitation of Children
The extraterritorial sexual exploitation of children is the act of traveling to a foreign country and engaging in sexual activity with a child in that country. Federal law prohibits an American citizen or resident to travel to a foreign country with intent to engage in any form of sexual conduct with a minor (defined as persons under 18 years of age). It is also illegal to help organize or assist another person to travel for these purposes. This crime is a form of human trafficking, also referred to as child sex tourism. Convicted offenders face fines and up to 30 years of imprisonment

I think you're wrong about that too.

All right, I found the exact citation and it's a >92% conviction rate for 2013. So, I was going off an incorrect stat before.

Only 3% of cases go to trial, and 97% of convictions they obtained were the result of a guilty plea prior or during trial.

Here you go: http://www.justice.gov/usao/re...

The prosecutor threat of stacking of charges to induce a guilty plea is well documented elsewhere, so what was your point?

Here's a bit more about how dividing geographical areas up between companies is a violation of antitrust law. I strongly suggest you read it.

The short answer is that identity theft is a crime. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.

"fraud OR deception". There was definitely deception involved here. That it wasn't for economic gain is irrelevant. "typically" as opposed to a necessary ingredient of the crime.

"Its a terrible company" City Councilor Gary Rosen said. "In my opinion, they should not be welcome in this city. Comcast is a wolf in wolfs clothing; its that bad."

Who would have imagined this? In the world's largest free market economy. Oh wait! Is it, really?

I am waiting for Obama to preach to the world about the so called free market. Why not let it in so that the market decides?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
http://www.justice.gov/crimina...

It took about 2 minutes of Google to find this.

The null hypothesis is now "corporations have committed crimes for which an individual would face prison time."

If you disagree, the burden is fully on you to justify that.

The Twitter blog entry cited says that they are prevented from revealing the number of NSL & FISA orders received even if that number is zero. The text of the lawsuit explains that under the terms of the settlement in January between the government and Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Yahoo! (laid down in what the lawsuit calls the Deputy Attorney General's letter (PDF), companies are allowed to give either the numbers of NSL & FISA orders received and accounts affected but only in bands of 1000, of which the first is 0-999, or the total number of orders received in bands of 250, starting with 0-249. Is that what killed Apple's warrant canary?

Twitter want to publish more specific numbers, including zero. They say that "The DAG Letter cites to no authority for these restrictions on service providers’ speech" and argue that anyway the settlement doesn't apply to them.

A previous blog entry says Twitter want "to provide that information in much smaller ranges that will be ... more in line with the relatively small number of non-national security information requests we receive." According to Twitter's last transparency report, there were 1257 information requests from law enforcement in the US, covering 1918 accounts. Does this suggest that Twitter receive about the same number of NSL & FISA orders?

During their lifetime, 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped*.
During the year preceding the study, 1.6% of women and a negligible number of men have been raped*.

During their lifetime, 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences.
During the year preceding the study, 5.5% of women and 5.1% of men experienced these other forms of sexual violence.

Female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators in all categories.
Male victims reported predominantly male perpetrators for rape, female perpetrators for being made to penetrate and sexual coercion, and a nearly even split for unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experience.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

*The US DOJ definition of rape: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

The DOJ settled with them and made them pinky swear to follow the law for the next 5 years.

not kidding... http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

Yes, it is the same with pharmaceuticals and off-label marketing. If convicted of felony off-label marketing, a company is permanently barred from selling drugs to government programs, like Medicare. But of course what would happen if the manufacturer of a popular blood pressure medicine was banned from selling to Medicare? A lot of old people would die.

So instead, despite repeated, multiple, ongoing criminal fraud and multiple violated integrity agreements, and despite fines now exceeding $2 billion dollars, somehow, magically, they're never convicted of felony fraud.

Obama (and Bush) claim it is in the best interest of the people, because they can't ban those companies and lose the drugs. Too big to fail. But the solution is stupid simple:

Ban the company, revoke ALL their patents, thus allowing any other company on the planet to manufacture every one of their drugs, and be done. Off-label marketing will absolutely stop dead if J&J goes from a $100+ billion innovator to a $100 million generic drug manufacturer overnight.

The DOJ settled with them and made them pinky swear to follow the law for the next 5 years.

not kidding...
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

The DOJ settled with them and made them pinky swear to follow the law for the next 5 years.

You think I'm kidding?
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

According to the federal government, Cannabis and Hallucinogens are in fact addictive.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/doc...

It's all lies to keep the war on drugs alive and well... but hey, when did the truth matter?

Umm the DOJ and Congress are at the same level as the president not under him. Maybe you should quit your McJob and go back to highschool.

Firstly, I didn't say anything about Congress. Secondly the DOJ (United States Department of Justice) is a Federal agency within the Executive branch (you know, the part that the President runs?).

From the Wikipedia Page:

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries. The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is a member of the Cabinet. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder.

I'm guessing that you mistakenly believe that the DOJ is actually the Judicial Branch of the US Government.

My friend, sometimes (and this appears to be one of them) it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Sigh. Why is it that so many of my countrymen seem to know so little about how our government is organized? It's rather depressing.

Misleading, at best.

The MSCO serves, in short, pretty shitty parts of the Phoenix metro area.

The USDOJ report condemning the MCSO is a good read on background information.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/abo...

Since 2008, violent crime rates have remained at roughly the same level in Maricopa County, while dropping by over 10 percent in similarly situated jurisdictions.

In the last decade, the "heart" of Phoenix has gotten vastly safer, and the bad parts of Phoenix - unincorporated areas served by the MCSO (again, as someone who lives here) has gone to hell. I don't have to lock my doors in my neighborhood, but I wouldn't wander after dark in some MCSO served neighborhoods. [There are bad neighborhoods served by Phoenix PD too, but MCSO has it bad.]

In short, MCSO's crime rate is about the neighborhoods they serve, not them being ineffective.

You should read your citations better. It says people with staff-inmate relations (which are a federal felony Deterring Staff Sexual Abuse of Federal Inmates) don't consider them wrong. Much like teenagers, I'm sure that inmates aren't in a position of authority and cannot legally consent to assigned guardians.

All I see is DOJ advocacy of direct sales: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...
And the DOJ suing some dealerships under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...

It sounds like they're doing what they can, which is nice... that is their job, after all.. But I'm still pretty sure they lack the power to do anything about this until they're authorized to intervene by some statute empowered by the Commerce Clause.

All I see is DOJ advocacy of direct sales: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...
And the DOJ suing some dealerships under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...

It sounds like they're doing what they can, which is nice... that is their job, after all.. But I'm still pretty sure they lack the power to do anything about this until they're authorized to intervene by some statute empowered by the Commerce Clause.

Is the opposition coming just from the dealers?

Largely yes from what I can tell. I think the big autos are staying largely out of the argument to avoid pissing off their dealer networks. The auto companies are in a tough spot - they need the dealers because they are required to need the dealers and thus have no alternative. I think the auto makers would prefer to do away with many of the dealers but cannot. The justice department published an interesting study on the relevant economic effects.

Many industries sell only through distributors, dealers, or otherwise "authorized" retail outlets.

Usually when the cost to reach/serve the customer is too large to justify the expense of interacting with customers directly. In years past having the dealer network allowed the auto makers to concentrate on making the vehicles without the distraction and expense of trying to sell the end product too. Now however much of the profits is in service and financing so requiring a dealer network makes considerably less sense than it did 40 years ago.

Not an easy read but a good backgrounder on this, which also seems to be a Department of Justice advocation of direct manufacturer sales:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...

It's on the internet, so it must be true!

Here's the rest of the story of "clear shipping bags." http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

Unser was charged with a misdemeanor and fined $75, so... not a felony. Oh, the humanity!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Honest Services" -- Oops, no example of "honest services" fraud. But it could happen! But it hasn't. (Note: I agree that we should be vigilant against potential abuses, but let's concern ourselves more with real abuses.)

Espionage Act -- Another "didn't happen."

Obstruction of Justice -- the lawyer admitted to a lapse in judgment by helping the church cover up the crime. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- DID happen. My sympathies are with Bret McDanel. Notably, however, the Justice Department admitted error, his conviction was overturned, and a precedent has been set against future misapplication of the law.

Wire Fraud -- Misattribution. Lori Drew was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, though the conviction was overturned in this case as well. I think we all agree that the woman was knowingly malicious, however, and she did not "accidentally" commit a felony. It was important that the law not be used outside of the scope of its intended use though, which is why I'm glad the EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant, even though what she did was horrible.

Providing Material Support for Terrorism -- Another "no example," of misapplication, but one to watch out for. Though I think we all understand how laws are created and tested at this point.

Making a False Statement to a Federal Official -- Terrible example. This guy was clearly trying to skirt the law and provide material support to militant jihadists. http://www.telegram.com/articl...

- "And dont give me that BS about how well regulated means regulations, it does not. It means well armed."

Cite, please? Any kind of evidence at all to back this up?

Sure, here's a whole opinion by the U.S. Department of Justice explaining just that, and more: http://www.justice.gov/olc/sec...

No, it's not. The view that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to private citizens did not enter into America politics and courts until the late 1800's after the civil war when gun control laws started being passed as a way to disarm recently freed blacks in the south. Prior to that it was never questioned that it applied to "The People". The DOJ did a very though review of the law going back to the signing of the constitution and they came to the same conclusion that it was an individual right.

"breaking the car manufactures monopoly on in-car mapping..."

Will this be similar to how apple "broke the monopoly on ebooks" http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
Or how they "Broke the monopoly on hiring". http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

Ever heard of getting a third party GPS for like $99 at costco with lifetime maps? When it gets old i just throw it out and get a newer/faster/whatever one.
Far cheaper then getting the fancy in-dash model and not being able to replace it.

"One thing I really wish would happen would be to have the car industry be also mandated to provide third-party access to all of the screens"

Really, you think that is fair? Would it work the other way as in i think apple should be mandated to provide third party access to their very lucrative add-on market (cords, chargers, etc).
Why should the auto industry be "forced" to open up to a company which is known for vendor lockin?

But, that's illegal. And I don't at all agree that it's fair to displace equally (and often higher) skilled people in their home country. I myself was displaced from a 7 year position this week as a result of a contract from an Indian company that simply dumped cheap, unskilled foreign IT labor into a US-based Fortune 500 company. They were in no way qualified to take over my role and I had to train my replacement from square one. (A large and recent example of H1-B abuse: http://www.justice.gov/usao/tx...)

Amazon, using its monopoly power in ebooks, kept prices artificially low. When Apple entered the market, Amazon lost some of its monopoly power and publishers used this event to increase eBook prices across the board.

From http://www.justice.gov/atr/cas... Page 160 "Amazon screwed it up. It paid the wholesale price for some books, but started selling them below cost at $9.99. The publishers hated that — they thought it would trash their ability to sell hardcover books at $28. So before Apple even got on the scene, some booksellers were starting to withhold books from Amazon. So we told the publishers, “We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.” But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too. So they went to Amazon and said, “You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not going to give you the books.”"

There was no "pre-cartel" pricing. There was only Amazon selling at a loss to drive every other ebook store out of business. They failed to do that, though they have been successful at getting the courts to go after everyone else in retribution.

from http://www.justice.gov/atr/cas... "On January 27, Jobs launched the iPad. As part of a beautifully orchestrated presentation, he also introduced the iPad’s e-reader capability and the iBookstore. He proudly displayed the names and logos of each Publisher Defendant whose books would populate the iBookstore. To show the ease with which an iTunes customer could buy a book, standing in front of a giant screen displaying his own iPad’s screen, Jobs browsed through his iBooks “bookshelf,” clicked on the “store” button in the upper corner of his e-book shelf display, watched the shelf seamlessly flip to the iBookstore, and purchased one of Hachette’s NYT Bestsellers, Edward M. Kennedy’s memoir, True Compass, for $14.99. With one tap, the e-book was downloaded, and its cover appeared on Jobs’s bookshelf, ready to be opened and read.

        When asked by a reporter later that day why people would pay $14.99 in the iBookstore to purchase an e-book that was selling at Amazon for $9.99, Jobs told a reporter, “Well, that won’t be the case.” When the reporter sought to clarify, “You mean you won’t be 14.99 or they won’t be 9.99?” Jobs paused, and with a knowing nod responded, “The price will be the same,” and explained that “Publishers are actually withholding their books from Amazon because they are not happy.” With that statement, Jobs acknowledged his understanding that the Publisher Defendants would now wrest control of pricing from Amazon and raise e-book prices, and that Apple would not have to face any competition from Amazon on price."

You're probably thinking of the 2011 Visa/Mastercard settlement, which explicitly allows variable prices based on form of payment. Not every state was involved in that lawsuit though, and there may very well be some that prohibit it.

The official position of the U.S. Department of Justice is squishy-soft on antitrust enforcement on tie-in sales. This is partly in response to the "U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 2001 decision in United States v. Microsoft (the Internet Explorer/Windows tying case) which rejected application of the per se rule to "platform software," thereby "carving out what might be called a 'technology exception' to that rule.

What's killed the effectiveness of the Clayton Act is Justice Department policy on "economic analysis". The economic argument is that allowing monopolies to achieve economies of scale is good for the consumer. Read the DoJ position statement linked above, especially the sections on "prosecutorial discretion", to see this.

What folks around here seem to forget is that Apple tends to punch above it's market share weight. Likely because it inhabits a very profitable niche and the Reality Distortion Field is still has some power to it. And it's Apple. And MacBooks are cool. But is is a small player overall.

And just to keep all of the Apple haters happy, let's be clear that the US Government has spent quite a bit of time attempting to nail Apple when it thinks they've abused a position in the market place.

Bing is set as the default browser on a bunch of Windows systems in many countries. This has allowed Microsoft to leverage their illegal monopoly on PC desktop operating systems (as described in Judge Jackson's findings of fact and confirmed by the US court of appeal) to break into a market where their product would have no chance otherwise. In the EU, there have been systems configured with a choice of browsers and search engines, however that is an exception. That's basically showing how much of a complete joke law enforcement against Microsoft is. Basically wait until they steal yet another market and then slap a "huge million dollar file" of a few points of a percent of their revenew from that one product on them.

They do, but not often. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

Really? For a long time the MS JVM was the fastest and most compatible (according to Sun's own verification suite) VM available for any browser on any OS.

MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The whole thing makes interesting reading, but just search for Java and JVM to see what I'm talking about. Microsoft was following their "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, which had worked well for them many times before. They had a Java-like language, J++ that was not compatible with Sun Java.

Sun's has to share some of the blame for Java failing to become a browser standard, as they did everything they could to maintain control of Java, rather than turn it over to an open standards body. But in fairness they did invent it, and Microsoft had the resources to dominate any open standards effort through sheer numbers of representatives. In contrast, Netscape did turn JavaScript over to Ecma (a very wily choice, I think), and I don't think we'd still be discussing it if they had not.