Slashdot Mirror
Jamming Cellphones with Text Messages
Steve writes "Some Penn State professors and students have published a way to jam cellular voice service with simple text messages. From the article: 'Because text messages are transmitted on the same signal that is used to set up voice calls, just 165 messages a second is enough to disrupt all cellphones in Manhattan.' Cellular providers, of course, fired back, one stating that it 'constantly and aggressively monitors potential threats to the integrity and security of its network.'"
Registration article. Fine, I registered -- the NY Times now has a 5300 pound black woman born in 1906 for a new reader as far as they're concerned.
Mark this -1 Offtopic, btw.
Preface
Spammers have screwed up so much of what was once usable. Yet most users of the Internet are entirely unaware of it. They see spam only as part of being online. They think it's like other advertising, and some even think it's their ISP doing it.
William R. James
March 10, 2003
Thank the Spammers
Oddly enough, I remember a time when closing a relay was considered extremely rude. In the early days of the Internet, everyone who connected to it took some responsibility in helping to ensure that all the Internet's traffic was routed to its destination. Some places had better connections than others and some connections were unavailable at times for various reasons. So part of connecting your machine to the network was sharing the load and donating little bits of bandwidth here and there so the Internet ran smoothly for everyone. Relays were important because sometimes a user's home server was unavailable.
Then came the spammers. Because they abused the relays, like they abuse everything else, the relays had to be turned off. They found that they could abuse the relays and cost others hundreds or even thousands of dollars, but it prevented them from losing the $10 dialup account or free NetZero account. It's like a thief who steals a $1000 wedding ring with priceless sentimental value just to sell it for a $20 cocaine fix. Old software which ran perfectly well had to be replaced just to close the hole which was so important to leave open before. Yeah, thank the spammers for that.
But that's not the only thing the spammers have ruined. Free ISPs were growing. These services weren't perfect, they came with ads which were intentionally in the way, but that paid for the service, so it was OK. Over all, NetZero's service was actually pretty good even if it did have that open window in the way. But spammers learned that they could abuse those too, and their mind-set is "abuse it quickly before it goes away" knowing that the abuse is what will make it go away. But each spammer wants to be the one to milk it dry before the next spammer does, and all of them combined make it useless. Thanks, spammers, thanks a lot.
Try querying any database which has email addresses anywhere in it. They have to either make it pay only, or make you type in something associated with an image before you can retrieve data. Why? Because spammers found out there were valid email addresses in them and started hammering the servers with automated software, grabbing the entire database, using up all the bandwidth 1000 times over, just to harvest a handful of addresses from it to abuse as well. So to defend themselves and keep their servers from crashing, database owners had to make it impossible to query automatically. Thank the spammers.
And let's not forget Usenet. Munging addresses was once considered blatant abuse. Now very few people post with a valid address. If you want to discuss something off-line or off-topic with a poster, you either can't do it via email or you have to manually "decode" and type in their address. Thank spammers for that too.
The spammers claim to be running legitimate businesses, but legitimate businesses who ask for email addresses when you download their product get 99.9% garbage addresses now. Sign up for anything online and you have to use an email address which you don't expect to keep. The trust is rightfully gone. Again, that's something else for which you can thank spammers.
If you happen to run an authentic, legitimate business, you can't even post your own email address on your web site anymore. If you do, any addresses you publish for use by customers are instead harvested and added to thousands of spammers' lists. They become no longer usable in a very short time. So even though it may mean fewer orders, and the customer has to type more and may lose trust in your business because you can't give them an email address, you have to use contact forms and hide your address. Thanks, spammers.
And what about those contact forms? They are also targe
WTF, the story's been out 30 seconds and TripMasterMonkey hasn't posted yet?
I'M NOT ANGRY!
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
." 15 U.S.C. 2. This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm violates 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through anticompetitive acts. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The offense of monopoly power under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 488 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("Our 2 monopolization doctrines are . . . directed to discrete situations in which a defendant's possession of substantial market power, combined with his exclusionary or anticompetitive behavior, threatens to defeat or forestall the corrective forces of competition and thereby sustain or extend the defendant's agglomeration of power.").
The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiffs") bring these consolidated civil enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs charge, in essence, that Microsoft has waged an unlawful campaign in defense of its monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. They also assert that Microsoft attempted, albeit unsuccessfully to date, to monopolize the Web browser market, likewise in violation of 2. Finally, they contend that certain steps taken by Microsoft as part of its campaign to protect its monopoly power, namely tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, violated 1 of the Act.
Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact ("Findings"), filed herein on November 5, 1999, as amended on December 21, 1999, the proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the briefs of amici curiae, and the argument of counsel thereon, the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system. The facts found do not support the conclusion, however, that the effect of Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies constituted unlawful exclusive dealing under criteria established by leading decisions under 1.
The nineteen states and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiff states") seek to ground liability additionally under their respective antitrust laws. The Court is persuaded that the evidence in the record proving violations of the Sherman Act also satisfies the elements of analogous causes of action arising under the laws of each plaintiff state. For this reason, and for others stated below, the Court holds Microsoft liable under those particular state laws as well.
I. SECTION TWO OF THE SHERMAN ACT
A. Maintenance of Monopoly Power by Anticompetitive Means
Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . .
1. Monopoly Power
The threshold element of a 2 monopolization offense being "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market," Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 570, the Court must first ascertain the boundaries of the commercial activity that can be termed the "relevant market." See Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 177 (1965) ("Without a
Except that its not free to the one receiving the message. I get charged 10 cents for each receieved message. So if I message my mom, she pays 20 cents.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America ("United States") and Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by and through their respective attorneys, having agreed to the entry of this Stipulation, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that:
1. A Final Judgment in the form attached hereto may be filed and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any party or upon the Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, and without further notice to any party or other proceedings, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on Microsoft and by filing that notice with the Court.
2. Unless otherwise provided in the proposed Final Judgment, Microsoft shall begin complying with the proposed Final Judgment as if it was in full force and effect starting 45 days after the date the proposed Final Judgment is submitted to the Court. Subject to the foregoing, Microsoft agrees to be bound by the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment pending its entry by the Court. If the United States withdraws its consent, or if (a) the proposed Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (b) the time has expired for all appeals of any Court ruling declining to enter the proposed Final Judgment, and (c) the Court has not otherwise ordered continued compliance with the terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, then the parties shall be released from all further obligations under this Stipulation, and the making of this Stipulation shall be without prejudice to any party in this or any other proceeding.
3. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(g), within ten (10) days of the submission of the proposed Final Judgment, Microsoft will file with the Court a description of any and all written or oral communications by or on behalf of Microsoft, or other person, with any officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant to the proposed Final Judgment, except that any such communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the employees of the United States Department of Justice alone shall be excluded from this requirement.
4. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(b), on or before November 16, 2001, the United States will file with the Court a Competitive Impact Statement explaining the terms of the proposed Final Judgment. The United States will publish the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
5. The United States will publish a notice informing the public of the proposed Final Judgment and public comment period in the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News, for seven days over a period of two weeks commencing no later than November 15, 2001.
6. Members of the public may submit written comments about the proposed Final Judgment to a designated official of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for a period of 60 days after publication of the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
7. Within 30 days after the close of the 60-day public comment period, the United States will file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register any comments it receives and its response to those comments.
8. Once the aforementioned procedures have been compiled with, the United States will file with the Court a certification of compliance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 16, and a Motion for Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment, unless it withdraws its consent to entry of the proposed Final Judgment pursuant to paragraph 2, above. At any time thereafter, and at the conclusion of any further proceedings ordered by the court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(f), the Court may then enter the proposed Final Judgment, provided that the Court determines that entry of the p
Yeah. Bloody white-flag-waving garlic-frog-eating gsm-designing europeans.
Bastards.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl