Under the normal appeals procedure, Gates could drag this thing out for years.
Gates will "drag this out for years." Who are you kidding!
Sending it strait to the top means that Gates gets one more chance for appeal, and then he has to break up the company.
The appels process is designed specifically to prevent the possibility of the Micro$oft breakup. Why would Micro$oft appeal if they had NO hope of overturing the ruling? Your statement turns logic on its head!
The "conservaitive" appointees are probably the least likely to overturn the ruling, because Reagan and Bush went out of their way to find judges with a strong bias towards the philosphy of judicial restraint, as a reaction to the "activist judges" of the Berger court.
Horsedroppings! The Reagan/Bush appointees have made the most pro-corporate legislation in Americas history! Not to mention limiting appeals for death row inmates (many of whom are innocent, convicted under racist courts that provide no legal assistance for the economically disadvantaged, for example), and other "conservative" twists of decent law.
Whatever reasons you may have for disliking O'Connor or Thomas, they are totally against political legislating from the bench.
Really! Iguess that's why they do so much "political legislating" from the bench, as the examples given above demonstrate. Do you actually believe that limiting appeals processes for individuals and expanding these same processes for corporations is not political? Give me a break!
MICROS~1 will almost definately be split up, and I could not be happier about it.
Sorry, but you're wrong, and future events will bear my position out
pinko.:)
Anti-corporate positions does NOT make one a communist, but rather a concerned citizen. Communism/Socialism/*ism has nothing to do with this, so stop throwing unfounded and unjustified epithets.
By the way, does anybody else find it amusing that this article is coming out two days after a Federal judge ordered the break-up of what was the world's biggest and richest corporation as recently as last year? I mean, if not even MSFT is above the law, who is?
Uh dude, don't you think your statement is a tad premature. You would do well to consider the fact that Judge Jackson has recommended that the case go directly to the Supreme Court for appeal. This means that Judge Jackson's ruling against Micro$oft will be overturned by the Reagan/Bush stacked right-wing pro-corporate Supreme Court "justices."
Micro$oft "above the law?" You can bet your life on it, Ogalthorpe!
Please, take your transparent pro-corporate hyperbole elsewhere.
Linux is the hot new thing, but it is merely a copy of the same old stuff.
Mr. Pike is a tad bit hypocritical on this point. Linux was created because Bell Labs/ATT made UNIX proprietary and prohibitively expensive.
Of course Linux "is merely a copy of the same old stuff." The "same old stuff" that Bell Labs/ATT charged a large amount of money to use and restricted access to only the wealthiest corporations and their employees.
Linux and *BSD made Unix available to the masses. `;^)
'GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES You may write and compile (including byte-code compile) your own application programs using the Software, including any libraries and source code included for such purpose with the Software. You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software without additional license or fees, subject to all of the conditions in this statement.'
Actually, it's what the license does not state that one should concern themselves.
For example:
No restriction on source code distribution is explicit in the language of the contract.
No restriction is placed on use of libraries provided by Borland.
No restriction is placed upon the authors' "intellectual property" so subsequent distribution should pose no problem.
Additionally, it's important to note that a compiler cannot produce source code. Source code is produced via the combination of knowledge of a computer language, combinatorial logic (using your brain, duh), and your favorite text editor (vi, or emacs, for example). Therefore, it is impossible for Borland to restrict the subsequent distribution of any product that does not require the use of their C/C++ compiler. The compiler merely links and compiles an executable that is specific to the environment that the source code was compiled.
Hence, it is safe to conclude that the premise of this article is in error. Borland can place no restriction on the "intellectual property" that is produced exclusive of Borlands' compiler technology.
'The source of the "US economic boom" is open to a wide spectrum of debate, but I rather doubt that the boom is the result of "lack of job security"'
loose monetary policy strong demand new and exciting tech markets!!! (see irrational) margin lending, credit, zero savings of course information technology, although often overstated
"fear of job insecurity has nearly vanished in the last three years for all Americans"
Lots and lots and lots of temps and part time workers in blue collar manufacturing, services and retail markets.
Perhaps if you weren't blinded by your emotional assertions, you would have understood what I was writing. It's really actually impossible in many cases to extrapolate your isolated use of cheap labour to macro issues. For example, the current US economic boom is largely due to a lack of job security, and real wages that have not gone up in years to match inflation.
True, white collar crime does make me a bit angry and emotional. My apologies.
The source of the "US economic boom" is open to a wide spectrum of debate, but I rather doubt that the boom is the result of "lack of job security" (fear of job insecurity has nearly vanished in the last three years for all Americans). I think our productivity gains explain the lack of "inflation."
Sure we can. In my illustrated case, they do not make six figures. They are both cheaper labour, and both accept these jobs because they are much better conditions than they are used to. Simple.
First, I live in the Silicon Valley, and I can assure you that Engineers from India are not cheaper than American Engineers with comparable skill sets.
I'm also an engineer by degree (MSEE) and am quite familiar with our communities issues, and I can assure you that the vast majority of Engineers from India make six-figure salaries. In fact, they demand salaries in this range, by default.
BTW - I forgot to give you a link to additional documentation of Nike's "business practices." Try this following link to Corporate Watch.
Whether it is an excuse or not is irrelevant.
Although you may find such arguments "irrelevant," those of us who find amorality wrong, and too often a convenient excuse for malfeasance do find this quite relevant.
I work with several engineers from India. They are highly skilled and bring salaries in the six figure range.
How can you compare a highly skilled and educated engineer who makes a six figure salary with a nine-year-old girl who make 30 cents per day?
Get real!
Because amoral corporate pirates take advantage of corrupt "third world" governments and ultimately their citizens, does not excuse their amoral and highly destructive behavior. "Gosh, everyone else is doing it..." is no excuse!
Finally, Nike's use of slave labor is well documented, and continues to this day.
"NIKE's athletic products 'must also be produced in the best working conditions,' Philip Knight, NIKE chairman and CEO, said in a letter to Rep. Bernard Sanders. 'We won't stand for anything less. That's why we have made labor practices a priority.'"
Please. This is nothing but a duplicitous statement by Mr. Knight! and could only be described as hypocritical posturing, at best.
The facts are that Mr. Knight's corporation makes use child slave labor. The fact that this situation continues, when Mr. Knight could institute policies the would eliminate this situation only further indicates his hypocracy, and double-dealing in regards to this matter.
How easy it is for Mr. Knight to take the "moral high-ground" while his corporation and stockholders continue to reap an obscene profit at the expense of children.
Furthermore, how unbecoming of you to defend his amoral profiteering while children in the "third-world" pay the ultimate price while Mr. Knight lives in a state of luxury known only to royalty.
Your "they know not what they do" argument is wearing quite thin, and is readily verifiable nonsense.
To the ignorant (read punk rockers who think he is a god), it is easy to take his information and spin as abolute truth. Further, the ignorant have a hard time distinguishing failures in a political and economic system from so called hordes of evil corporates bent on extreme self gain at the expense of others. This, of course, is just not the case, as it is more subtle than this.
I'm sorry, but I must say that I disagree with you. True, many of the folks who read Chomsky do so with a distinct lack of critical analysis, but to state that corporate elites are not "bent on extreme self gain at the expense of others" is a little niave.
That fact is that elites in any situation are presented with a dilemna: there are two paths to dominance [1] a totalitarian state [2] the neo-liberal model of the present corporate totalitarian state. Of course, there are other alternatives, but they do not yield the desired absolute control over debate that is required by the corporate totalitarian state.
Stated simply: Americas corporate elite tend to find overt fascist totalitarian states repugnant, and tend to opt for the crypto-fascistcovert model of dominance over the general population. Of course, this makes no attempt to fathom the motives of the corporate elite. Their actions do a better job of condemnation than mere association or ideology.
If one wishes to discover the danger presented by the corporate state and its total dominance over the media, and the subsequent spectrum of debate, you should examine the following United States propaganda campaigns:
The Gulf War
The invasion of Panama
Indochina from the 1940's to the present
The events that led to the justification of our involvement in Vietnam
The lessons of these events more than reinforce my points in regard to this matter.
Finally, I think we can all agree that homogenization of debate is bad if we agree that an informed general population is vital to healthy democratic society.
Leading social critics have long pointed out the vast lack of relevant information provided to the American public by the Corporate media. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent goes into this subject in great depth, pointing out the high concentration of ownership of the corporate media by Americas corporate elite.
Today, six conglomerates own 95% of the American news media. This concentration of ownership is generally realized in totalitarian states like Columbia, Argentina, etc. It is telling to note that virtually no Americans recognize this situation for what it really is: a corporate propaganda system. This corporate propaganda system is design solely to limit debate and confine the limits of debate to a pre-defined spectrum set by Americas corporate elite.
This is a very dangerous situation, and this point cannot be stressed enough. The danger to our Bill of Rights could not be more pronounced.
Finally, it should be understood why Americas corporate elite monopolize our communications media: they intend to inculcate the American public with the values, belief system and illusions necessary to contain the bounds of debate to predefined limits. Those limits - of course - are defined by corporate america, to the great detriment of all Americans.
Make no mistake: corporate americas elite do not monopolize the media in order to present the un-varnished truth, but rather to manipulate and deceive the public.
Jon Katz is one of the few Americans making this point and he should be complimented for doing so.
The famous journalist, George Seldes once interviewed the founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini. Seldes asked the following question,
"What is Fascism?" Mussolini replied, "Fascism is
corporatism and reaction."
So, there you have it boys and girls. From the mouth of Fascisms' creator!
"Fascism is corporatism and reaction."
Here's another quote from Mussolini:
"...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... "
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
This quote sounds suspiciously like the opinions of the vast majority of Slashdot readers. Brainwashed Fascist Swine!
Now, ask yourself why you mindlessly take up his battle cry without asking why.
Because like the vast majority of "Americans," he's brainwashed by constant propaganda from the "American" corporate media.
Bottom line: He's just another braying jackass American.
So ask yourselves this -- why would an ex-CIA Director be pissed off at a group defending American freedom and liberty?... Oh, right. Duh
Could it be that ex-presidente Shrub is opposed to freedom? Or is "freedom" spelled "freehdom" (the F.B.I. director is named Louis Freeh, for those of you who live a sheltered life)?
Slashdot Mirror
Gates will "drag this out for years." Who are you kidding!
The appels process is designed specifically to prevent the possibility of the Micro$oft breakup. Why would Micro$oft appeal if they had NO hope of overturing the ruling? Your statement turns logic on its head!
Horsedroppings! The Reagan/Bush appointees have made the most pro-corporate legislation in Americas history! Not to mention limiting appeals for death row inmates (many of whom are innocent, convicted under racist courts that provide no legal assistance for the economically disadvantaged, for example), and other "conservative" twists of decent law.
Really! Iguess that's why they do so much "political legislating" from the bench, as the examples given above demonstrate. Do you actually believe that limiting appeals processes for individuals and expanding these same processes for corporations is not political? Give me a break!
Sorry, but you're wrong, and future events will bear my position out
Anti-corporate positions does NOT make one a communist, but rather a concerned citizen. Communism/Socialism/*ism has nothing to do with this, so stop throwing unfounded and unjustified epithets.
Uh dude, don't you think your statement is a tad premature. You would do well to consider the fact that Judge Jackson has recommended that the case go directly to the Supreme Court for appeal. This means that Judge Jackson's ruling against Micro$oft will be overturned by the Reagan/Bush stacked right-wing pro-corporate Supreme Court "justices."
Micro$oft "above the law?" You can bet your life on it, Ogalthorpe!
Please, take your transparent pro-corporate hyperbole elsewhere.
Linux is the hot new thing, but it is merely a copy of the same old stuff.
Mr. Pike is a tad bit hypocritical on this point. Linux was created because Bell Labs/ATT made UNIX proprietary and prohibitively expensive.
Of course Linux "is merely a copy of the same old stuff." The "same old stuff" that Bell Labs/ATT charged a large amount of money to use and restricted access to only the wealthiest corporations and their employees.
Linux and *BSD made Unix available to the masses. `;^)
Amen.
Although I must mention that the real scam is Solaris certification. All told, you'll spend ~ $10,000 to complete Sun's program.
...and Solaris certification is equally meaningless...
Yes, I'm Solaris cerified.
Actually, it's what the license does not state that one should concern themselves.
For example:
No restriction on source code distribution is explicit in the language of the contract.
No restriction is placed on use of libraries provided by Borland.
No restriction is placed upon the authors' "intellectual property" so subsequent distribution should pose no problem.
Additionally, it's important to note that a compiler cannot produce source code. Source code is produced via the combination of knowledge of a computer language, combinatorial logic (using your brain, duh), and your favorite text editor (vi, or emacs, for example). Therefore, it is impossible for Borland to restrict the subsequent distribution of any product that does not require the use of their C/C++ compiler. The compiler merely links and compiles an executable that is specific to the environment that the source code was compiled.
Hence, it is safe to conclude that the premise of this article is in error. Borland can place no restriction on the "intellectual property" that is produced exclusive of Borlands' compiler technology.
Have a look at my database driven web site.
I agree completely. Corporate control of the media has done more to destroy democracy in this country than anything else in our history.
Thanks! It's nice to know I'm not alone in this debate.
Oh, and:
'The source of the "US economic boom" is open to a wide spectrum of debate, but I rather doubt that the boom is the result of "lack of job security"'
loose monetary policystrong demand
new and exciting tech markets!!! (see irrational)
margin lending, credit, zero savings
of course information technology, although often overstated
"fear of job insecurity has nearly vanished in the last three years for all Americans"
Lots and lots and lots of temps and part time workers in blue collar manufacturing, services and retail markets.
I agree.
True, white collar crime does make me a bit angry and emotional. My apologies.
The source of the "US economic boom" is open to a wide spectrum of debate, but I rather doubt that the boom is the result of "lack of job security" (fear of job insecurity has nearly vanished in the last three years for all Americans). I think our productivity gains explain the lack of "inflation."
First, I live in the Silicon Valley, and I can assure you that Engineers from India are not cheaper than American Engineers with comparable skill sets.
I'm also an engineer by degree (MSEE) and am quite familiar with our communities issues, and I can assure you that the vast majority of Engineers from India make six-figure salaries. In fact, they demand salaries in this range, by default.
BTW - I forgot to give you a link to additional documentation of Nike's "business practices." Try this following link to Corporate Watch.
Whether it is an excuse or not is irrelevant.
Although you may find such arguments "irrelevant," those of us who find amorality wrong, and too often a convenient excuse for malfeasance do find this quite relevant.
I work with several engineers from India. They are highly skilled and bring salaries in the six figure range.
How can you compare a highly skilled and educated engineer who makes a six figure salary with a nine-year-old girl who make 30 cents per day?
Get real!
Because amoral corporate pirates take advantage of corrupt "third world" governments and ultimately their citizens, does not excuse their amoral and highly destructive behavior. "Gosh, everyone else is doing it..." is no excuse!
Finally, Nike's use of slave labor is well documented, and continues to this day.
Please. This is nothing but a duplicitous statement by Mr. Knight! and could only be described as hypocritical posturing, at best.
The facts are that Mr. Knight's corporation makes use child slave labor. The fact that this situation continues, when Mr. Knight could institute policies the would eliminate this situation only further indicates his hypocracy, and double-dealing in regards to this matter.
How easy it is for Mr. Knight to take the "moral high-ground" while his corporation and stockholders continue to reap an obscene profit at the expense of children.
Furthermore, how unbecoming of you to defend his amoral profiteering while children in the "third-world" pay the ultimate price while Mr. Knight lives in a state of luxury known only to royalty.
Your "they know not what they do" argument is wearing quite thin, and is readily verifiable nonsense.
I'm sorry, but I must say that I disagree with you. True, many of the folks who read Chomsky do so with a distinct lack of critical analysis, but to state that corporate elites are not "bent on extreme self gain at the expense of others" is a little niave.
That fact is that elites in any situation are presented with a dilemna: there are two paths to dominance [1] a totalitarian state [2] the neo-liberal model of the present corporate totalitarian state. Of course, there are other alternatives, but they do not yield the desired absolute control over debate that is required by the corporate totalitarian state.
Stated simply: Americas corporate elite tend to find overt fascist totalitarian states repugnant, and tend to opt for the crypto-fascist covert model of dominance over the general population. Of course, this makes no attempt to fathom the motives of the corporate elite. Their actions do a better job of condemnation than mere association or ideology.
If one wishes to discover the danger presented by the corporate state and its total dominance over the media, and the subsequent spectrum of debate, you should examine the following United States propaganda campaigns:
The Gulf War
The invasion of Panama
Indochina from the 1940's to the present
The events that led to the justification of our involvement in Vietnam
The lessons of these events more than reinforce my points in regard to this matter.
Finally, I think we can all agree that homogenization of debate is bad if we agree that an informed general population is vital to healthy democratic society.
Leading social critics have long pointed out the vast lack of relevant information provided to the American public by the Corporate media. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent goes into this subject in great depth, pointing out the high concentration of ownership of the corporate media by Americas corporate elite.
Today, six conglomerates own 95% of the American news media. This concentration of ownership is generally realized in totalitarian states like Columbia, Argentina, etc. It is telling to note that virtually no Americans recognize this situation for what it really is: a corporate propaganda system. This corporate propaganda system is design solely to limit debate and confine the limits of debate to a pre-defined spectrum set by Americas corporate elite.
This is a very dangerous situation, and this point cannot be stressed enough. The danger to our Bill of Rights could not be more pronounced.
Finally, it should be understood why Americas corporate elite monopolize our communications media: they intend to inculcate the American public with the values, belief system and illusions necessary to contain the bounds of debate to predefined limits. Those limits - of course - are defined by corporate america, to the great detriment of all Americans.
Make no mistake: corporate americas elite do not monopolize the media in order to present the un-varnished truth, but rather to manipulate and deceive the public.
Jon Katz is one of the few Americans making this point and he should be complimented for doing so.
Corpratism sounds a lot like facism.
Well, duh...
Corporatism IS fascism!
The famous journalist, George Seldes once interviewed the founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini. Seldes asked the following question,
So, there you have it boys and girls. From the mouth of Fascisms' creator!
"Fascism is corporatism and reaction."
Here's another quote from Mussolini:
This quote sounds suspiciously like the opinions of the vast majority of Slashdot readers. Brainwashed Fascist Swine!
The Founding Fathers lived a good 80 years before the emergence of the earliest corporatism in America and long before our current, 1984-esque version
Excuse me! but the statement referenced above is readily verifiable bullshit.
Let me disabuse you of an illusions you may harbor:
The East India Trading Company was chartered by the Queen of England on the 31st of December, 1600.
The East India Trading Companies ability to tax the American colonists was the primary reason for the Revolutionary War.
Now, shut up and stop spreading false revisionist history. Idiot!
Now, ask yourself why you mindlessly take up his battle cry without asking why.
Because like the vast majority of "Americans," he's brainwashed by constant propaganda from the "American" corporate media.
Bottom line: He's just another braying jackass American.
So ask yourselves this -- why would an ex-CIA Director be pissed off at a group defending American freedom and liberty? ... Oh, right. Duh
Could it be that ex-presidente Shrub is opposed to freedom? Or is "freedom" spelled "freehdom" (the F.B.I. director is named Louis Freeh, for those of you who live a sheltered life)?