Slashdot Mirror

Depending on which dictionary you go to, monopoly is either held exclusively by one company, or by a group. (Dictionary.com uses the word "group", while Merriam-Webster just refers to a single company.) The definition of "group" is what's important here. There are many instances in business history where competitors in one field got together to agree not to compete in certain ways -- most notably by price-fixing.

Free-market economic theory would indicate that CEOs would never do this, that they would decide to compete in any way possible to eke out more market share. Yet this does happen. We have documented cases of price-fixing across all sorts of industries: legal research, oil firms, even vitamin manufacturers. There are plenty of theories as to why it happens, though my personal favorite is psychological. I think that CEOs, when they're placed in charge of vast corporations they cannot entirely control or understand, become extremely risk-averse. This is why large corporations rarely innovate; it's also why a CEO might enter into a price-fixing agreement. It's just one less thing to worry about. At least for the CEO; everybody else usually suffers, in higher prices and poorer quality.

Double Click, aka "Cookie Monster", is infamous for getting into trouble with placing cookies in their banners. Intuit is being sued by users of its Quicken.com website right now because people clicked banners on their website placed by Double Click and this lead to personal data, "including tax preparation and bill paying tools" were sold to third parties. More info on that lawsuit here.

Cookies can, and often do, store very personal information and can be a breach of security in some cases, but they're not all evil. For the casual browser, cookies can be useful to say the least.

I know for sure though, I don't want to be caught on Double Click's bad side. (1 2 3)

Hmm...lawyers don't earn their keep, they simply get overpaid...

Sure a few lawyers make millions, but most don't. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the median annual salary for all attorneys in the U.S. in 1996 to be $60,000. See http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm# earnings. I know a lot of .com folks who make a whole lot more than that for doing didlysquat. And how many .com folks are required to give away any of their workproduct for free? Most jurisdictions require lawyers to do pro bono work for the community or for the indigent. Most of my colleagues (yes, I too am an attorney, and I make less than the median salary) work their butts off (60 to 80 hour weeks are not uncommon) to help people defend their rights. Most of us are also saddled with student loans (the average loan load is $66,000, with monthly payments averaging $750 to $1000). See http://www.lawnewsnetwork .com/stories/A5219-1999Sep7.html.

If you really think we are overpaid, then the next time some large corporation hauls you into court over something you have posted on the web, you just go ahead and defend yourself. And don't blame the corporation's lawyers either, slimy as they may be...blame the corporate management who instructed them to do it, and the shareholders who elected the management to maximize profit above all else.

The legal system is just a reflection of the society it operates in. Greedy lawyers "harassing" people with lawsuits wouldn't be able to do it without greedy clients. A personal example: A relative of mine is a doctor. He constantly complains to me about "goddamn lawyers" driving up his malpractice insurance rates with their frivolous lawsuits. He was in a minor traffic accident that involved his car being hit from behind. His neck was sore (possible whiplash, but probably not). He immediately called me up and asked how much I thought he could get in a suit. I told him he could probably get any medical expenses and lost wages for any real injuries. He was really disappointed...he wanted "six or seven figures". Even when I pointed it out, he couldn't see that his attitude was one of the problems he had complained so vociferously about.

Lawyers and the law can do a lot of good. Without civil rights lawyers, schools, motels, and other public places would still be segregated. Without securities lawyers, corporate executives could manipulate insider information to make a killing in the stock market at the expense of the average investor. Without . . . well, you get the idea I'm sure.

The article from LawNewsNetwork clearly shows how arrogant and greedy those fucking lawyers are. Basically, what they're saying is that patent law is the business of lawyers and not of technology experts. How fucked up is that??? The Law is voted by the parliament, which is supposed to represent the people. The people, not the fucking lawyers! I had never read an article before this one that showed that clearly how american lawyers are so full of themselves. Hey, lighten up, you job is to help apply the law, not to tell *us* what it should be! We, the citizens (I'm talking about the democratic world in general, not the US only obviously), are entitled to decide what should go into the law.

Damn, how DARE THEY claim to know better than O'Reilly, Bezos and Stallman how the law should be? Their business is not about WHAT the law is, it's about how it applies, as it is written.

"I am troubled by the broader notion that Bezos and his industry are entitled to special protection"

With all due respect to the community, a call-in campaign to say that UCITA is all bad is probably the best way to assure that UCITA will ultimately pass exactly as drafted.

A defeatist attitude can only lead to defeat. Your voice can make a difference, a thousand voices can make as much difference as the the bribes paid to Virginia's legislators (bribes that are only effective because they help secure votes - legislators will flee a truly, widely unpopular position regardless of the cash on the table).

If you doubt your effect, here's a story about the Collection of Information Antipiracy Bill:
http://www.l awnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A15771-200 0Feb9.html

Thanks to efforts in the Open Source community (including Slashdot) and growing consumer opposition, the February vote on this ridiculous bill has been delayed as a somewhat more friendly bill is considered.

Educating the media and state legislators about UCITA can and will have an effect.
Resolve to write one dead-tree letter on the issue ever week from now until it's dead.

This is yet another example of the holders of intellectual property rights attempting to expand those rights beyond their original scope. The courts need to step in a make perfectly clear that commentary, parody, criticism have nothing to do with trademarks or copyright. Further, some form of deterant (perhaps SLAPP suits) has to be in place to prevent frivolous cease-and-desist letters and lawsuits.

Trademarks grant nothing more than a right to operate a buisness under that name. If you're scared about the ever lengthening copyright term, follow this link.

It summarizes a case about The Three Stooges. The copyright has expired on the Stooges long ago and they are in the public domain, but the former copyright holders are attempting to go after anyone using the Three Stooges for trademark violation! Luckily, a 30-second clip appearing in a movie was deemed not infringe on the trademark. However, whether those selling Stooges T-shirts are violating trademark laws has yet to be decided. Believe it or not, the lawyers interviewed are split on whether placing these public domain characters on T-shirts is legal!

the idea of breaking MS this way has been discussed in a number of other forums and one of the themes which arises is that while what you propose (so called 'horizontal' breakup) would do the most to kill the monopoly, it also does the least good for the customer for various reasons. there is of course the danger (or the gurantee) that windows would fragment. while that would make joe slashdot happy, it wouldn't actually be much fun for the hoi paloi.

as for leaving the OS monopoly intact--what of it? the OS monopoly is a perfectly legal thing. what is illegal is for MS to push into other areas (applications, internet content, etc...) by leveraging this monopoly, and that's precisely what the DoJ is targeting. in this case, i must think that it is not the DoJ who needs to get a clue from slashdot, but perhaps the other way around.

Another article on the same website about the Goo Goo Dolls vs. their record label and owning their own domain name. Here the lawyer talks about how to protect one's self but again they want to bring lawyers into it (= Good luck convincing lawmakers to limit lawyers in any way, how do you become a lawmaker without law experience or a pro-wrestling career?

From the article :
A new breed of prospector has landed in California and every other technology epicenter to help companies discover their hidden treasures. Like their predecessors of the nineteenth century, they come from many walks of life. Many of them are lawyers.

What isn't mentioned in the article is that each time an IP prospector chooses to try a patent, it cost money. The cost of each atempt to lock up the obvious is passed needlessly along to the user .

_____________________________________

Here is a good story about the nature of the remand. It basically says that the Appeal court agreed to an En Banc hearing to evaluate the merits of Bernstein in light of the new BXA regulations on crypto. However, since this case was about speach, my prediction is that 9th Circuit will uphold the panel's decision. Requiring a 'license' to speak is hardly different under 1st Amend jurisprudence than disallowing it. I expect the BXA to be embarrassed again.

The Law News Network has another article, http://www.lawnewsnetwork .com/stories/A1253-1999May6.html, with a bit more focus on the legal aspects ... including what happens next.

I've been following crypto politics for a number of years now. This ruling is a good sign. But that fence-sitting from the second judge is troublesome; basically, Sanity is only partially in control here.

This whole thing is a symptom of the ongoing fascist tendancies of the government. Get real; they try to defend against terrorists by taking privacy away from everyone else, and thus preventing them from defending themselves against more routine crimes.

- Dave

This is an edit of a message I posted to my (IP law) class mailing list... (Most of the links have appeared in Slashdot before).


>With regard to the questions posed at the end of your email... I think
>I'd be wanting a serious reduction in price if I were to have my rights in
>the music made subject to a restrictive licence. Certainly it wouldn't go
>down well with the music buying public, but then, if the corporations want
>us to go this way we'll have no choice: they'll just withdraw the other
>music media.

Yup. People won't be happy with restrictive licences, but the corporations
will try to introduce them anyway...

Following my ramblings about proprietary vs. open formats, there is an interesting piece in Wired News, reporting a speech from the head of BROADCAST.COM, Mark Cuban.

WIRED: MP3 WILL DIE

He says "distribution, not content, will be king" and that "MP3 will die".

Two thoughts spring to mind.
1. The golden rule of the web: "Content, Content, Content"
2. Why give up what's free in favour of what costs?

MP3 can't be uninvented - and new open formats will undoubtedly come along. I think this gives publishers and broadcasters a problem - they are going to have to find new ways to "add value" if they want to keep their markets.

This also applies to Windows vs. Linux:
WIRED: OFFICE DELAYS AFFECT MS PROFIT

WIRED: LINUX CUTS IN ON MS TURF

Does anyone think governments, regulators, and the software and entertainment industries will be able to stem the tide?

LAWNEWS: LINUX MAY ALTER IP LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Hopefully this all ties in with the current study topics - I apologise if I'm just rambling on :-)

I say sell broadcast.com, buy redhat and Transmeta :-)

What do slashdot-ers think?

--
http://www.dubar.com

--