Slashdot Mirror


Jail Time For Price-Fixing Car Parts

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Dept. of Justice has announced that Panasonic and its subsidiary Sanyo have been fined $56.5 million for their roles in price fixing conspiracies involving battery cells and car parts. The fines are part of a larger investigation into the prices of auto parts. Interestingly, 12 people at various companies have been sentenced to jail time, and three more are going to prison. Since the charges are felonies, none of the sentences are shorter than a year and a day. Criminal fines targeting these companies has totaled over $874 million. 'The conduct of Panasonic, SANYO, and LG Chem resulted in inflated production costs for notebook computers and cars purchased by U.S. consumers. These investigations illustrate our efforts to ensure market fairness for U.S. businesses by bringing corporations to justice when their commercial activity violates antitrust laws.'"

68 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Banksters by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And the banksters go free.

    1. Re:Banksters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. Banksters do far worse by several orders of magnitude and get away with it.The biggest crime of these companies is probably that they were foreign and did not do enough to buy off US politicians,

    2. Re:Banksters by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well it turns out that the US justice system is one such that people have to actually violate a law to be tried and convicted, not to just make someone on Slashdot mad. So, if you think a banker should go to jail, then let's hear the details: Who is it, what law did they break, and what evidence do you have of this? Also remember it had to be illegal at the time they did it. If new laws were introduced later in response to what happened, those don't count, the US Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws.

      "They caused the economy to crash!" is not a valid answer, and also shows a rather large amount of ignorance of the situation (if you think the downturn had a singular cause, you need to do more research).

      This whining gets a little old. People cry that "the bankers" (or "banksters" in your case) should go to jail but yet never seem to be able to cite specifics. That to me says you don't actually know of any laws broken, you are just mad and think that you're angry should be reason enough to convict someone.

      So, if there are specific cases you think should be prosecuted, then don't whine about "banksters" as some large group, any more than someone should whine about "hackers" as some large group. Post those specific cases. If not, then maybe spend some time reconsidering your position.

    3. Re:Banksters by professionalfurryele · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets ignore the fact that your words ring hollow because they bribed and bought the system to make their acts legal. There were things which should at least result in a court case.

      Improper reporting of their assets. They claimed their collateralised debt obligations were worth more than they were on their balance sheets and there is clear evidence they knew they were worth less than they claimed. How about Merril Lynch selling CDOs to Lonestar, claiming it was for 22% of the face value when the terms of the deal made it clear they were only selling them for about 6% of the face value.

      Or for a more recent example HSBC acting as banker for the worlds terrorists and getting a slap on the wrist.

      These people are scum, and some of them did illegal things. We should be going through our banking system one banker at a time searching all their records and looking for anything they may have done which was complicit in causing the crash and going after each and every one of them personally, no point in going after the banks themselves if we are just going to bail them out.

    4. Re:Banksters by dmbasso · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you should also do your homework, like getting informed of what is happening in the world. Preferably outside the media bubble that broadcasts lies for profit.

      But I'll give you one breadcrumb, google for "libor fixing". I guess that will keep you entertained for a while.

      Btw, do you think the term "too big to jail" arose without a reason? There was a recent senate hearing on banks, you can find some enlightening videos on youtube. Specifically, look for senator Elizabeth Warren's questions. I mention this in case you reply the recent libor fixing scandal was restricted to the UK... to find out what is happening in the US you need to actually investigate, but that's not going to happen.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    5. Re:Banksters by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      We should be going through our banking system one banker at a time searching all their records and looking for anything they may have done which was complicit in causing the crash and going after each and every one of them personally, no point in going after the banks themselves if we are just going to bail them out..

      No, you should be going after the government that executed ideas because they wanted to "open up the system." It's a fine bubble to live in when you believe that "da banks caused it all" when in fact many banks were against the idea of removing regulations in the first place. Especially when dealing with sub primes. Sadly the government in turn gave the banks and lenders the great ultimatum. Follow or loose FDIC backing. So the banks followed, and they gamed the hell out of it because it became legal to do so. But hey, keep living in that bubble. After all you guys in the US got this guy by the name of Bernanke, who believes "turning on the printing press..." is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Banksters by khallow · · Score: 1
      Again, if it is legal, then it isn't a crime - by definition.

      We should be going through our banking system one banker at a time searching all their records and looking for anything they may have done which was complicit in causing the crash and going after each and every one of them personally, no point in going after the banks themselves if we are just going to bail them out.

      You need probably cause for that in the US. You don't have that, but just some vague feeling that they should have broken laws by acting as they did.

    7. Re:Banksters by bfandreas · · Score: 2

      I find it remarkable that the corporate veil has actually been breached in this one. Usually personal wrong-doing is not prosecuted in price-fixing cases. The companies in question get fined and that's the end of it. Or at least that was my understanding.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    8. Re:Banksters by jellie · · Score: 2

      Here's a recent example: Blythe Masters, an executive at JP Morgan Chase, may escape prosecution after having manipulated energy prices in California and Michigan. Officials have accused her of rigging prices, and they also accuse JP Morgan Chase of trying to cover up the evidence. Strangely, the recommendation was for a civil case, not a criminal case, against Ms. Masters.

    9. Re:Banksters by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 1

      I was going to say the same thing.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    10. Re:Banksters by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      People cry that "the bankers" (or "banksters" in your case) should go to jail but yet never seem to be able to cite specifics.

      S&P clearly committed fraud in giving its AAA credit ratings to instruments that clearly did not deserve them. People have been talking about this since 2008 - how could you have missed it as the most specific and provable cause of the financial crisis?

      There was also substantial fraud in the CDO market that was very well publicized.

      There were material misrepresentations and collusion in the Bear Stearns hit, watch the Frontline program on it, and ... wait, were you being facetious?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Banksters by dragonard · · Score: 1

      Words from my mouth.

    12. Re:Banksters by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

      They're working on it. The cases are complicaed. The first few are coming in. I think there'll be a lot more.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    13. Re:Banksters by sjames · · Score: 1

      Multi-billion dollar fraud has been documented including knowingly selling junk as AAA. BOA continues illegally foreclosing on homes (even homes they don't hold a loan on in some cases). If the SEC, DOJ, etc don't see any crimes on Wall Street it's because they're looking the other way.

    14. Re:Banksters by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      The two examples I gave are of things for which there are definitely laws against, and HSBC were let of with a slap on the wrist. That is why I listen them. We have probable cause, they misfiled their reports to the SEC, the value they claimed their assets had they didn't. I happy to let the few banks which didn't require bailout money go, for the rest we have a reasonable suspicion they mislead the regulator and can search their records.

    15. Re:Banksters by froth-bite · · Score: 1

      "Blythe Masters"....what an excellent name for a bankster!

      --
      In NSA America social networks join you!
    16. Re:Banksters by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How about Merril Lynch selling CDOs to Lonestar, claiming it was for 22% of the face value when the terms of the deal made it clear they were only selling them for about 6% of the face value.

      Merril Lynch and Lonestar are big boys. If they can't read and understand the fine-print, it's their own stupid fault. Both are global companies with plenty of lawyers.

      They claimed their collateralised debt obligations were worth more than they were on their balance sheets and there is clear evidence they knew they were worth less than they claimed.

      It doesn't matter what they 'knew,' it matters if they followed the rules of accounting.

      they bribed and bought the system to make their acts legal.

      Yeah, that's a serious problem, one that unfortunately Dodd-Frank makes worse.

      no point in going after the banks themselves if we are just going to bail them out.

      We shouldn't 'just' bail them out. Any bank that needs a bailout should be broken up and sold in pieces. This is what Paul Volcker proposed: too big to fail should be too big to exist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:Banksters by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Specifically, look for senator Elizabeth Warren's questions.

      If you're talking about this movie, you should realize you just fell for some great political theater. Seriously, even the title screams it. Hearings are a great way for politicians to look like they are doing something, and it's a tradition that goes back to the 1800s (if not longer), talking as though you will persecute big business, but then actually being on their side.

      In the case of Elizabeth Warren, she's more then willing to defend big business, if they pay.

      Be careful when you make a politician a hero, because it's almost always a mistake.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Banksters by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Merril Lynch and Lonestar are big boys. If they can't read and understand the fine-print, it's their own stupid fault. Both are global companies with plenty of lawyers.

      If they made false claims with the intend to defraud, it's a crime.

      It doesn't matter what they 'knew,' it matters if they followed the rules of accounting.

      If they made false... oh, you know.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Banksters by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If they made false claims with the intend to defraud, it's a crime.

      The fine print is the full disclosure. The rest is understood to be non-binding. If they mislead in marketing to consumers, it might still be fraud, but not to sophisticated investors, who should understand that the contract is what matters, not the talking before-hand.

      If they made false... oh, you know.

      No, you are wrong, SOX requires following GAAP, even if it's completely misleading (which is why many companies are releasing a second accounting report in addition to GAAP financial report).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Banksters by Macdude · · Score: 1

      This whining gets a little old. People cry that "the bankers" (or "banksters" in your case) should go to jail but yet never seem to be able to cite specifics. That to me says you don't actually know of any laws broken, you are just mad and think that you're angry should be reason enough to convict someone.

      How about we start with the F'ing bankers who were laundering billions but didn't get charged with any criminal activity and their organization only got a token fine because it would be "bad for the economy" if they were held responsible for their criminal activity.

      Then we could go after the F'ing bankers that took money from congress with the promise that they would re-start lending to the "little guy" and instead used it to buy up their competition and pay executive bonuses.

      If you don't think most bankers (i.e. top executives at the large banks) should be in jail you haven't been paying attention.

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    21. Re:Banksters by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The bankers bought off the government. The gov't has been a pawn of the banks for a long, long time now. Don't try to dodge the issue. There's a lot of people who need to go to jail over this, but very likely won't.

      Really? Then maybe you can tell me where to send the money so I can buy myself in. Being a currency trader, and in the "banking system" I'd really like to loosen a bunch of rules.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    22. Re:Banksters by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      S&P clearly committed fraud in giving its AAA credit ratings to instruments that clearly did not deserve them.

      And when S&P degrades the federal government's credit rating, the gov't sues.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  2. Asset forfeiture by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    How about using it against someone besides some poor schmuck found with a roach in the ashtray? Beats the hell out of giving the bastard free room and board...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Asset forfeiture by ridley4 · · Score: 1

      But, I thought in this modern era of human resources, employees were the assets seized!

    2. Re:Asset forfeiture by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      How about using it against someone besides some poor schmuck found with a roach in the ashtray? Beats the hell out of giving the bastard free room and board...

      Yes, because making it profitable to arrest someone is such a good idea. What could possibly go wrong?

    3. Re:Asset forfeiture by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Yes, because making it profitable to arrest someone is such a good idea. What could possibly go wrong?

      That's already how it is. The state gets to seize anything used in the commission of a crime. The ability to seize property (both land and otherwise) is one of the big motivators for states to participate in the War On Personal Freedom (aka the War On Drugs.) What could possibly go wrong is selective enforcement, and not seizing these particlar ill-gotten gains is a prime example thereof. Bill Gates' fortune is another. Now it's been sunk into a tax dodge and is being used to spread restrictive IP laws like TRIPS.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Asset forfeiture by cffrost · · Score: 1

      How about using it against someone besides some poor schmuck found with a roach in the ashtray? Beats the hell out of giving the bastard free room and board...

      Yes, because making it profitable to arrest someone is such a good idea. What could possibly go wrong?

      The possibilities are endless... They could make it illegal to carry "too much" cash. They could assume that someone they busted for selling dime-bags came by all of their possessions illegally — (guilty until proven innocent — that's our system, isn't it?). If things got really our of control, we might even live to see the day they build private prisons in this country.

      If it ever got to that point, though, we'd be well and truly fucked. Could you imagine the headlines? "US industrial prison system exceeds peak of Soviet gulag system!"

      Heh, yeah, right... I'd better off my aluminum foil hat now... I don't want to give myself nightmares.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  3. Where is the refund for consumers ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Fed caught the crooks, fined them, and threw some of them into the slammer.

    But what about the consumers who had been cheated ?

    Don't we deserve some refunds?

    I mean, we paid overpriced batteries for our notebooks, overpriced car parts for our vehicles, and so on.

    Don't we deserve to get our money back ?

    Any attorney here ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Government investigations result in fines going to the government. They don't pay out to us petty people. Those hurt have to sue the companies to get any compensation.

    2. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      the best way to get your money would have an attorney draft a letter telling them that you plane to file a case in small claims court for the cost of one laptop battery plus legal fees, point out that the cost of giving you a new battery would cost them less than it would to fight the case even if they won.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

      The cost benefit analysis of your strategy is obvious. You not only don't have to spell it out to them, you weaken your case by stating the obvious. Doing so also exposes your inexperience and undermines your credibility.

    4. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by erroneus · · Score: 2

      "The Fed" usually refers to the Federal Reserve Bank. It was the DOJ who brought this in and home. I'm astounded there was jail and prison time assigned. These white collar crimes of this nature don't result in such usually..,at least we never hear of it.

      Ineed, the matter prosecuted was a criminal one. Based on the success of the criminal investigation and prosecution, civil suits should br brought. However, it will be the lawyers who win, not us.

    5. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And when they're mugged, most people decide their lives are worth more than the cash they parted with, so you see how they were cheated?

    6. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      So you think collusion and price fixing should be legal?? You, sir, are talking utter nonsense.

    7. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Don't we deserve some refunds?

      I mean, we paid overpriced batteries for our notebooks, overpriced car parts for our vehicles, and so on.

      Your taxes don't go up as much? Or, more realistically, the 1%'s taxes don't go up so much.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The cost benefit analysis of your strategy is obvious. You not only don't have to spell it out to them, you weaken your case by stating the obvious. Doing so also exposes your inexperience and undermines your credibility.

      You're both right. You point it out to them, but only in the process of sending them a document detailing the basic facts, which are that the battery costs such and such retail and that you are seeking such and such dollars. Unfortunately, if the letter doesn't come from some other lawyers, they will probably treat it as if it were written on a placemat with crayon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by Technician · · Score: 1

      I guess that is why the original gen 1 prius battery is pretty much fixed at 2299.95. Only rebuilders that buy Gen !! cells can offer batteris at a lower price.

      If there is a refund, I guess I would be elegible twice. Once for the original car purchase and once for the replacement battery.

      I guess this is worth watching.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    10. Re:Where is the refund for consumers ? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, how is paying an attorney more than the cost of battery so you come out financially in the hole any better than a class action lawsuit where you get a $5 voucher. Your strategy only works if you are the lawyer.

  4. internet yes, movies, yes, but banks ? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    The current topic is price fixing.
    Internet providers pay the politicians for a government enforced monopoly so they can set prices without effective competition in a market.
    Movie studios use 90s Microsoft style tactics to exploit and maintain artificially high prices.

    At bankrate.com, I see dozens of banks competing on price. Certainly some in the scumbags are in the financial sector, and many offer services that aren't easy to understand, but where's the price fixing by banks? Not to say there isn't any, but where? The big issue I've seen with banks is that they loaned a lot of money to people who couldn't afford to repay the loans. In the beginning they were forced to by the government, but when they figured out how to resell the bad loans at a profit, they continued doing so voluntarily.

    1. Re:internet yes, movies, yes, but banks ? by noh8rz8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      libor. rate fixing to make borrowing more expensive and lending more profitable.

      --
      You want to upvote/downvote? Go back to Reddit! Here we mod up/mod down.
    2. Re:internet yes, movies, yes, but banks ? by cornjones · · Score: 1

      You are speaking only about the consumer/retaion banking side. There is some competition in rates on the retail banking side but we still have problems with exorbitant fees that seem pretty collusive. The commercial and investment banking are more problematic.

      One question i have had for some time that seems appropriate here is how there are such margins in banking? Why don't the competitive pressure in the banking industry drive down the margins? We have banking bonuses in teh billions of dollars going out and they are still making record profits. Doesn't economic logic dictate that in a competitive market place, another player would work for slimmer margins and drive the cost of the product (and therefore the margins) down?

    3. Re:internet yes, movies, yes, but banks ? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If we had well regulated healthy markets, yes. But what we have is unregulated markets dominated by a few big players.

      Frankly if you do that analysis all over our economy, you'll find a LOT of unhealthy markets.

    4. Re:internet yes, movies, yes, but banks ? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Well, sale of high-risk derivative bundles that the banks know are high-risk but that are marketed as "conservative" investments might be construed as price-fixing.

      And the Fed, while it has some other functions, is essentially price-fixing on a vast scale.

  5. Unlike the toothless Australian tiger ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Interesting to compare the US action to those of Australia where US companies have been involved in price fixing and anti-competitive behavior.

  6. meanwhile the govt collected extra taxes too by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    So the govt it self is the receiver of proceeds of crime.

    Collecting extra taxes and all the fines, good one.

    The real criminals are the govt, give us less taxes, because you have collected too many dodgy ones.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  7. Someone start the class action by maliqua · · Score: 1

    I could use some reimbursement on the countless batteries and misc crap i've apparently been f*cked on

  8. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    /me confirms that horse is dead

  9. mobile phone should be on the list by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Mobile phone charges should be on the list. Try getting a fair deal without a "sponsored" phone or getting support for a phone you haven't purchased with your plan. This can only be price fixing. Maybe there's no direct proof (yet) of phone companies negotiating about these, but it's sure odd that none of the big companies offer competitive no-sponsored-handset deals.

    The same applies to roaming charges. The companies bill each other for those and only the difference actually gets paid. In reality, this means that most cell phone companies charge a lot for roaming charges but they never get to pay those to others than themselves. They are only needed to pay for interlinking to other providers, but the cost of these interlinks is way lower than the cost of the on-the-air part of mobile networks.

    Lastly, paying by the second or by the amount of calls/texts you make is bogus. It's a data network and either you pay a flat fee, or you pay for the data you push over it. Charging differently because it's a voice or SMS protocol should be forbidden, it's 2013 now. Net Neutrality should be stretched to non-IP services as well. Especially if mobile providers want to block other services that are competing with their own voice or messaging platform. Any ISP, mobile or not should have responsible people that block these kinds of services spend some time with Bubba.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  10. Unfair prices for consumers of laptops... as long as you blatantly raise prices just because you can, like certain Adobe and Apple products costing 50% more outside of the U.S f.ex, then it's all fine apparently!

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  11. The prison sentences 1 year to 2 years to be exact by dicobalt · · Score: 2

    ... but if I were to rob a bank or steal expensive objects worth millions I wold be in prison for 20 years.

  12. Re:Bummer by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

    I like their Eneloop lines of rechargeable AAs. I own 2 mid-range Pentax DSLRs and they use AA instead of proprietary Li-ions

  13. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corporations own everything and run the government. There are no fines, no jail sentences, this can't happen. Obviously.

    Editors, please check your sources in the future because you've been tricked by a fake story.

  14. Re:Bummer by sjames · · Score: 1

    Why bummer? I doubt they'll exit the market, they'll just have to sell them a little cheaper now.

  15. Re:Bummer by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    Yeah but the problem with AA's is length of time before you have to change them. Lions are usually over 7 volts for one thing. So even if the camera has 4 AA's (6v) you're starting out your day with a weaker battery.

    But if you're just an average shooter, maybe on vacation, you'll likely have to change them at least once in a day. Under the same conditions a lion will probably go for a week or more. And they generally charge in an hour or less.
    When I got out of the AA cameras I was pleasantly surprised that one spare and I was good to go for a couple of weeks at a time. And I shoot with Pentax as well.

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  16. Prison is being misused by FuzzNugget · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really think prison is being misused by most of the world, especially the United States.

    I believe it should only ever be used to separate the most extremely, immediately, physically and irremediably dangerous from the rest of us to keep society safe. I'm talking about murderers, rapists, violent assailants, the kind of people who commit extreme acts and intend to keep doing them. Putting the drug dealers and possessors, scammers, petty thieves, civil disputers, drunks, the negligent and so on costs us more than benefits.

    This euphemism of "paying your debt to society" by spending time in a cement box always elicits uproarious laughter from me ... how is someone paying their debt when we're the ones footing the bill for their room and board??

    Prison should never be about "paying your debt", not that it's even possible in that manner. If we want people to "pay their debt", garnish their wages and have them pay back the *exact people against whom they committed the acts*. If that's not enough, put them in community service or other work programs, where they'll actually be performing work that will repay society, not cost it.

    Of course, there are underlying societal problems (poverty, increasing class inequality, antagonistic political attitudes, inadequate healthcare for the mentally ill) that are deeply rooted in reasons we send people to prison. It's just so much easier to throw them in a box than it is to address the real problems at their core. Law, it seems, has grown into this trolling monster that exists only to perpetuate itself while falsely purporting to serve the public.

    1. Re:Prison is being misused by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly, The People respond positively when it is announced that "criminals" have been imprisoned for their "crimes" almost regardless of why. In general there is a tendency to believe that they wouldn't have locked them up unless they were dangerous. But there are at least two obvious retorts, the first of which is that it is profitable to have a large machine which employs people in the pursuit of locking people up, and the second of which being that people who look for danger find it everywhere, and it's easy to get carried away even (or perhaps especially) when acting with the best of intentions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Prison is being misused by SpaceAmoeba · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. As you may know, there are examples of this. In fact the term is restorative justice.

      In one unusual case it was applied to a murder as described in this excellent NY Times article: Can Forgiveness Play a Role in Criminal Justice?.

  17. Everyone fixes prices. by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    Phones, tablets, game consoles... they all do it.

    There's been a bunch of web sites that have torn down these products and priced the parts. They all come close to the retail price of the product. But no one takes into consideration that these companies order parts by the millions (If they don't make some themselves).

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  18. Re:And yet by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

    They did get Martha Stewart for insider trading.

  19. Re:And yet by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    Yeah, celebrity. Woman. Not a banker. She never stood a chance.

  20. How do they put a corporation in jail? by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

    How do they put a corporation in jail?

    1. Re:How do they put a corporation in jail? by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Prohibit it from doing business for a period of time? What? You're saying that would hurt it? As in, might actually be a penalty?

  21. Foreign Companies by runeghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously, they haven't mastered the fine American art of purchasing politicans and judges.

  22. Good by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    Now, what about Oil companies, Telcos and similar crooks.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  23. doesn't mean what you think it means by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Look up "price fixing". It's an entirely unrelated concept.

    1. Re:doesn't mean what you think it means by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Look up "price fixing". It's an entirely unrelated concept."

      It is nothing of the sort. Price fixing is collaborating on the price of a good, external to market forces.

      The Fed fixes the price of LOANS. Loans are a product, too.

  24. Price fixing on batteries by rMatey123 · · Score: 1

    Oh, Thanks be to Dog! I thought it might have been computer batteries