I never said Sony was doomed, I said there was reason for legitimate concern. I also acknowledged that product hasn't been released yet, so the arguments were acedemic.
The vitriol statements were refering to the choice use of colorful language.
The fanboi* reference was to the head in the sand attitude that the poster was displaying. There are real issues to be concerned about, and they can be discussed in a manner thats not FUD.
Jesus, people here just like to read their own writing I guess.
*I'll spell it that way because I want to. Thanks.
As a photographer though I generally ask for permission to take a photo of someone, as long as they are not identifiable I can sale any photo taken in a public space.
Great. You don't legally have to, that's my point. People do this to prevent a possible lawsuit, not because its mandatory. If you are in a public place and have an photo taken of you, you can have that image published. Otherwise papparazzi wouldn't be able to function.
Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in the photo, for instance a photo of MacDonalds or the Golden Arch can not be sold if it demeans the brand.
What the hell does this have to do with privacy? This is the exact OPPOSITE of privacy. Trademarked symbols are protecting their use because of their popularity - not privacy.
The point being, passive observation is not unreasonable search and seizure.
That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that you don't even have to resort to "legally unreasonable" methods to gather the relevant data.
To define unreasonable in reference to the opinion of the principle target is too open ended.
Is passive observation unreasonable search and seizure?
If so, why? Privacy is NOT defined. It is an assumed right under other constitutional amendments in regard to active information gathering. What happens when all applicable data sources are public record and all transmissions captured use a public frequency.
There is no legal privacy there. It hasn't been argued to a refinement, nor has it been ruled to a granularity for precedent, that establishes what privacy legally refers to in context of passive observation. All the while, general public facing sources of information keep cropping up. Also, the means for personally involved parties of an event to release information relative to their observation have become easier to use.
The information is out and available. Is is unreasonable search and seizure to go get it or is it unreasonable research and data gathering?
Is the concept of unreasonable search and seizure outdated because legally you don't have to do anything that is legally defined as unreasonable in order to gather the relvant information?
A) Astroturfing shouldn't be done as an AC. I know - I employ astroturfers as a job function.
B) Read my previous post on why Sony should worry about its fanbase. While completely anecdotal - it is nonetheless the truth about a growing contingent of Sony gamers.
C)Sony does need a human voice. The targeted demographic for game machines is now the 25-30 year old grouping. We have enough disposable income to make these purchases and also have the biggest interest in them. We use blogs and 3rd party information sources to evaluate our purchases. The days of big media dictating consumption are coming to an end. Second wave gamers(read:people who had PS1's during their early teens)look up to their older siblings and hip media (read:non large corporation) sources for information.
While I can understand your references to previous attempts at FUD and misinformation, this is not the case on this turn. The field is wide open. Nintendo is betting on evolving gaming with a novel, and unfulfilled, interface with a lower price. Microsoft is offering a unified online experience with next gen resources. What does Sony have to offer to differentiate itself? Final Fantasy XIII?
Let's be real here. While Sony and Nintendo haven't released product yet, making all of these discussions academic at best, there is a real reason for concern. Microsoft has a head start. Nintendo has a better price and unique functionality to overcome it technical (in the relative) shortcomings.
First party development is not significant. Almost all games are cross platform. It would be a bad business decision to do otherwise. Final Fantasy games are exclusive, but they are changing their formula with their last (next) PS2 outing- FF XII, what are the reprocussions of that move? We don't know.
There are too many variables up in the air to call out the naysayers as fools, they have legitimate arguments this time. This is an admitted Sony fanboi saying this.
From the press that I have read, and the information I have been able to gather through my own research, Sony's saving grace may be that a significant chunk of Japanese 3rd party developers don't want to give Microsoft an advantage in their national video game market.
Let's let it play out before we begin the vitriol.
But it still makes me wonder how Nintendo reacted internally when they saw their group effort used against them. They were the king at that point and lost their position to a spurned conspirator.
Nonetheless, My original point was how I, as a loyal and fanatical Sony fanboi, have changed into a more objective consumer based on multiple events that individually don't create a significant opportunity for competition, but in the aggregate are worth more than the sum of their parts.
If Sony really does have all their eggs in this basket, they should have paid better attention to their actions as a whole.
My personal take on it is now is the time to define that right. We are quickly approaching a state where you can legally obtain information where previously it required unlawful acts. There is no protection for the "citizen" here.
Of course that opens up the can of worms for defining who is allowed those rights and who isn't, or when those rights can be exercised. It's a can of worms I believe is worth opening. Otherwise, those who know how to manipulate the rules have a foot up. While having the advantage is not something I am opposed to in most situations, the results in context of this subject are far reaching and have implications that could cause more harm than good in the long run.
Lets fix the leaky pipe before we have to replace the ceiling.
oh yeah. I was trying to illustrate my fanboi-ness.
Actually, Sony was trying to get back at Nintendo for a business deal gone bad. Sony was actually in partnership with Nintendo to make a disk based gaming system. Nintendo decided to drop it and left Sony holding the bag. Sony was like "ok fine. Watch this shit" and dropped the technology as the Playstation. Kicking Nintendo out of the top dog slot and making them regret the decision ever since.
You want me to take a usage study conducted by the same government that made a guy who thinks the internet is a bunch of tubes in charge of regulating it seriously?
I bet this report doesn't take into account people having multiple browsers or tabs open at the same time. Hell, if you looked at my logs it would look like all I did was surf slashdot all day. I can work and keep a tab for breaks open at the same time.
While I am all for privacy rights, I must ask the question. Are we entering an age where unreasonable Search and Seizure isn't required anymore to commit acts that the population perceives as an invasion of their privacy? Is it now possible for passive and non intrusive observation to yeild the same results? If so, do we need to define our privacy or attempt to limit passive observation?
It's not that the launch has to meet up to some certain standard of Sony quality, it's that it has to be good enough to convince people to hold on to their dollars and wait for more PS3s to come out rather than get a 360.
This is the very place I am sitting right now. I am getting a Wii on release day. At its price and potential, it is an easy buy for me. But for my hardcore system, I'm going to have to wait.
This is no small statement. After purchasing a playstation halfway through its lifecycle I was hooked. I reserved a PS2 and bought games for it like it was going out of style. When it broke, I did some research online and learned how to fix it myself. This is not something that should be tried by the less informed, and I knew it. Still I thought Sony could do no wrong. I was a Playstation fanboi.
Rootkit. Who cares. Thats Sony Music, not the games division. I was still looking forward to the PS3.
XBOX 360 is released with a ton of problems. GREAT! I hate Microsoft for trying to come into video games and buy a slice. I hated HALO, especially online. Sorry, but SOCOM is just better. I hope the XBOX 360 goes down in flames!
Then something happened. The PS3 wouldn't have rumble. OK, not a deal killer, but I am disappointed. I guess I can get over it. Next I began to see exclusive titles become cross platform. GTA IV has XBOX exclusive content? WTH? The next gen Spliter Cell is an XBOX 360 exclusive!!!! The guy who jumped off from Square/Enix is making an RPG available on the 360? The only thing that is keeping me looking at the PS3 are Final Fantasy games and the hope of future SOCOM releases.
This has allowed something to happen that Sony should really worry about. A true Sony fanboi has serious doubt now. I am not buying the PS3 sight unseen. I'm not preordering it. I'm going to let Microsoft and Sony fight it out for a little while. Not only that, but I might be persuaded early to jump ship depending on the quality of Final Fantasy VII. I'm not a fan of the action RPG take on the game. If it doesn't feel like a FF game, I'll jump ship as that's really the only thing keeping me looking at Sony right now.
This is coming from a person who detests Microsofts foray into gaming, and was blindly faithful to Sony. My personal perspective is that if I feel this way, others do to - and that is something that Sony should be really afraid of.
Other things (banning gay marriage and adoption, use of capital punishment) are simply majority opinion among both Democrats and Republicans, like it or not.
While they may be popular across both parties, the logic used behind them are what make them comparable. The gay marraige ban and adoption laws are based on religious reasons, not empirical evidence showing that they are harmful. That puts them in Al Qaida territory.
While I agree that it is not a Republican only "value", it does not dismiss it from the glaring simularities and roots. Same with a previous posters mentioning of liquor laws. The initial reasoning is purely religious.
except that support for XP runs out just a few months after Vista comes out.
Windows XP sp 2 loses support 5 years after its release date OR 2 years after its predecessors release. Whichever is longer. The end of life policy is right here.
Did they really mean qualified to learn? Or did they mean qualified to apply properly?
AJAX, and multiple other web technologies, suffer from being judged with criteria determined by the critic. In tech this translates into multile disciplines. UI guys love AJAX if used properly - the same build could be looked at from an app programmer's perspective as junk.
AJAX seems to address the cultural side of things. People love flashy things, especially if they can deliver 80% -90% of the functionality they want. An application developer may be able to deliver 100% of wanted functionality, but in a way that a user finds aesthetically displeasing.
I think this brings up an interesting point. When do developers start to realize that users will not conform to what they should do, but what they want to do? Learning the aspects of a development technology inside and out will not give a developer this edge. Paying attention to social aspects will.
I think that's what these guys meant when they said qualified to learn.
No, they don't. The creator has a monopoly by the virtue of a system that grants copyright on creation. This is something that's only as new as the 1970s. Before that point, you had to actually register to obtain this monopoly.
When I paint a painting, or write an original manuscript - I have a monopoly on that item. Only one exists. You didn't understand what I was saying.
Wrong. Plagarism is the act of misattributing an idea as if it were one's own. Copyright infringement is misusing too much or in an unacceptable way part or whole of a copyrighted work. You can commit plagarism on works that aren't copyrighted. The fact is, some reference works can be copyrighted because the artful arrangement of information can be considered a creative work and hence copyrightable. Obviously the phone book isn't artful and can't be copyrighted.
As for artists being able to mimic or copy each other, flat out copying wouldn't be any more copyrightable than using a xerox machine.
Not true. Sometimes what people are interested in buying is an artists style. The comparison of someone copying a masterwork by hand and using a xerox machine is inaccurate. The mechanism used for duplication makes all the difference in this area as it is a regarded element of these goods.
Actually, playing a work live could be considered a performance, and that entails paying money to the copyright holder. Further, samlping sections of a song and using them in your song is rather questionable, especially if you plan to copyright and sell such a song.
Sorry, playing a song live is not a performance. Performing a play is a performance. Performing a whole album by another band, recording the live show, and then selling the album is a performance. The content in question is taken into account on every matter. Stanford has pretty good material on the subject. Sampling is questionable in a case by case basis.
Again, fair use isn't so clear cut as to say that a lack of profit is sufficient to say that George Lucas is unable to stop people from using "Light Saber" in a work. This is especially the case when one is writing fiction of one's own and not simply citing it as a non-fiction reference. Obviously, non-fiction will have a smaller market effect on fiction than other fiction.
You're right. It also has to negatively impact the revenue generated by the creator's original work. See the Stanford link above.
How? Is the land the product of creativity (and I mean the land itself, not its usage which itself is not what land ownership is about; such would be land usageship)? I guess in some extent, managing to claim ownership of land is an amount of creativity, since clearly that's not an innate property of land. But the abstract idea of owning land stopped being creative and unique the second someone else was doing it too. The idea for land ownership is based on the innate finiteness of land. You can't copy land nor can two people utilize the same land in all ways at the same time. The same can't be said of copyrighted works.
You're over analyzing. The land is finite. The created work is finite at inception. Do not confuse the creative work (a finite resource) with the delivery vehicle of the creative work (often renewable, and in the case of digital infinte, resource). While the creative work may be emulated, duplicated, or built upon. The original work created is very finite.
To maintain stock prices is one thing. To link to the corporation as a means of aligning google with people who have bought (and sold) rights to rainwater is another altogether. The original argument doesn't stand. Google is anything but a pawn. Their stock is worth much more than it was before their IPO. Thats VERY far from a margin call. That is unless they are taking out loans against their stock, in which case their morons.
They also aren't directed by a bunch of "me first" asshats. The founders stated this was by design so they wouldn't end up being forced to make ethically compromising choices for the purpose of increasing their stock value.
Nope, any ethically compromising choices are being made by the big 3 there, no one else. I'm not going to let them off the hook by attributing their policies to the "overwhelming forces of the market."
Slashdot Mirror
You need a reading comprehension course.
I never said Sony was doomed, I said there was reason for legitimate concern. I also acknowledged that product hasn't been released yet, so the arguments were acedemic.
The vitriol statements were refering to the choice use of colorful language.
The fanboi* reference was to the head in the sand attitude that the poster was displaying. There are real issues to be concerned about, and they can be discussed in a manner thats not FUD.
Jesus, people here just like to read their own writing I guess.
*I'll spell it that way because I want to. Thanks.
Cheers
As a photographer though I generally ask for permission to take a photo of someone, as long as they are not identifiable I can sale any photo taken in a public space.
Great. You don't legally have to, that's my point. People do this to prevent a possible lawsuit, not because its mandatory. If you are in a public place and have an photo taken of you, you can have that image published. Otherwise papparazzi wouldn't be able to function.
Where it gets interesting is when a trademark is in the photo, for instance a photo of MacDonalds or the Golden Arch can not be sold if it demeans the brand.
What the hell does this have to do with privacy? This is the exact OPPOSITE of privacy. Trademarked symbols are protecting their use because of their popularity - not privacy.
The point being, passive observation is not unreasonable search and seizure.
Umm...no. He was just spouting off Sony fanboi diatribe, making vitriol a large part of his post.
That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that you don't even have to resort to "legally unreasonable" methods to gather the relevant data.
To define unreasonable in reference to the opinion of the principle target is too open ended.
Is passive observation unreasonable search and seizure?
If so, why? Privacy is NOT defined. It is an assumed right under other constitutional amendments in regard to active information gathering. What happens when all applicable data sources are public record and all transmissions captured use a public frequency.
There is no legal privacy there. It hasn't been argued to a refinement, nor has it been ruled to a granularity for precedent, that establishes what privacy legally refers to in context of passive observation. All the while, general public facing sources of information keep cropping up. Also, the means for personally involved parties of an event to release information relative to their observation have become easier to use.
The information is out and available. Is is unreasonable search and seizure to go get it or is it unreasonable research and data gathering?
OK, let me rephrase it.
Is the concept of unreasonable search and seizure outdated because legally you don't have to do anything that is legally defined as unreasonable in order to gather the relvant information?
A) Astroturfing shouldn't be done as an AC. I know - I employ astroturfers as a job function.
B) Read my previous post on why Sony should worry about its fanbase. While completely anecdotal - it is nonetheless the truth about a growing contingent of Sony gamers.
C)Sony does need a human voice. The targeted demographic for game machines is now the 25-30 year old grouping. We have enough disposable income to make these purchases and also have the biggest interest in them. We use blogs and 3rd party information sources to evaluate our purchases. The days of big media dictating consumption are coming to an end. Second wave gamers(read:people who had PS1's during their early teens)look up to their older siblings and hip media (read:non large corporation) sources for information.
While I can understand your references to previous attempts at FUD and misinformation, this is not the case on this turn. The field is wide open. Nintendo is betting on evolving gaming with a novel, and unfulfilled, interface with a lower price. Microsoft is offering a unified online experience with next gen resources. What does Sony have to offer to differentiate itself? Final Fantasy XIII?
Let's be real here. While Sony and Nintendo haven't released product yet, making all of these discussions academic at best, there is a real reason for concern. Microsoft has a head start. Nintendo has a better price and unique functionality to overcome it technical (in the relative) shortcomings.
First party development is not significant. Almost all games are cross platform. It would be a bad business decision to do otherwise. Final Fantasy games are exclusive, but they are changing their formula with their last (next) PS2 outing- FF XII, what are the reprocussions of that move? We don't know.
There are too many variables up in the air to call out the naysayers as fools, they have legitimate arguments this time. This is an admitted Sony fanboi saying this.
From the press that I have read, and the information I have been able to gather through my own research, Sony's saving grace may be that a significant chunk of Japanese 3rd party developers don't want to give Microsoft an advantage in their national video game market.
Let's let it play out before we begin the vitriol.
I agree.
But it still makes me wonder how Nintendo reacted internally when they saw their group effort used against them. They were the king at that point and lost their position to a spurned conspirator.
Nonetheless, My original point was how I, as a loyal and fanatical Sony fanboi, have changed into a more objective consumer based on multiple events that individually don't create a significant opportunity for competition, but in the aggregate are worth more than the sum of their parts.
If Sony really does have all their eggs in this basket, they should have paid better attention to their actions as a whole.
EXACTLY!
My personal take on it is now is the time to define that right. We are quickly approaching a state where you can legally obtain information where previously it required unlawful acts. There is no protection for the "citizen" here.
Of course that opens up the can of worms for defining who is allowed those rights and who isn't, or when those rights can be exercised. It's a can of worms I believe is worth opening. Otherwise, those who know how to manipulate the rules have a foot up. While having the advantage is not something I am opposed to in most situations, the results in context of this subject are far reaching and have implications that could cause more harm than good in the long run.
Lets fix the leaky pipe before we have to replace the ceiling.
oh yeah. I was trying to illustrate my fanboi-ness.
Actually, Sony was trying to get back at Nintendo for a business deal gone bad. Sony was actually in partnership with Nintendo to make a disk based gaming system. Nintendo decided to drop it and left Sony holding the bag. Sony was like "ok fine. Watch this shit" and dropped the technology as the Playstation. Kicking Nintendo out of the top dog slot and making them regret the decision ever since.
No, they were looking for the link to the sex gaming website.
You want me to take a usage study conducted by the same government that made a guy who thinks the internet is a bunch of tubes in charge of regulating it seriously?
I bet this report doesn't take into account people having multiple browsers or tabs open at the same time. Hell, if you looked at my logs it would look like all I did was surf slashdot all day. I can work and keep a tab for breaks open at the same time.
While I am all for privacy rights, I must ask the question. Are we entering an age where unreasonable Search and Seizure isn't required anymore to commit acts that the population perceives as an invasion of their privacy? Is it now possible for passive and non intrusive observation to yeild the same results? If so, do we need to define our privacy or attempt to limit passive observation?
It's not that the launch has to meet up to some certain standard of Sony quality, it's that it has to be good enough to convince people to hold on to their dollars and wait for more PS3s to come out rather than get a 360.
This is the very place I am sitting right now. I am getting a Wii on release day. At its price and potential, it is an easy buy for me. But for my hardcore system, I'm going to have to wait.
This is no small statement. After purchasing a playstation halfway through its lifecycle I was hooked. I reserved a PS2 and bought games for it like it was going out of style. When it broke, I did some research online and learned how to fix it myself. This is not something that should be tried by the less informed, and I knew it. Still I thought Sony could do no wrong. I was a Playstation fanboi.
Rootkit. Who cares. Thats Sony Music, not the games division. I was still looking forward to the PS3.
XBOX 360 is released with a ton of problems. GREAT! I hate Microsoft for trying to come into video games and buy a slice. I hated HALO, especially online. Sorry, but SOCOM is just better. I hope the XBOX 360 goes down in flames!
Then something happened. The PS3 wouldn't have rumble. OK, not a deal killer, but I am disappointed. I guess I can get over it. Next I began to see exclusive titles become cross platform. GTA IV has XBOX exclusive content? WTH? The next gen Spliter Cell is an XBOX 360 exclusive!!!! The guy who jumped off from Square/Enix is making an RPG available on the 360? The only thing that is keeping me looking at the PS3 are Final Fantasy games and the hope of future SOCOM releases.
This has allowed something to happen that Sony should really worry about. A true Sony fanboi has serious doubt now. I am not buying the PS3 sight unseen. I'm not preordering it. I'm going to let Microsoft and Sony fight it out for a little while. Not only that, but I might be persuaded early to jump ship depending on the quality of Final Fantasy VII. I'm not a fan of the action RPG take on the game. If it doesn't feel like a FF game, I'll jump ship as that's really the only thing keeping me looking at Sony right now.
This is coming from a person who detests Microsofts foray into gaming, and was blindly faithful to Sony. My personal perspective is that if I feel this way, others do to - and that is something that Sony should be really afraid of.
You mean Ang Lee?
Other things (banning gay marriage and adoption, use of capital punishment) are simply majority opinion among both Democrats and Republicans, like it or not.
While they may be popular across both parties, the logic used behind them are what make them comparable. The gay marraige ban and adoption laws are based on religious reasons, not empirical evidence showing that they are harmful. That puts them in Al Qaida territory.
While I agree that it is not a Republican only "value", it does not dismiss it from the glaring simularities and roots. Same with a previous posters mentioning of liquor laws. The initial reasoning is purely religious.
yeah, I'm an idiot. But the "spirit" of the post stands. Yet I will admit the messenger is a moron.
except that support for XP runs out just a few months after Vista comes out.
Windows XP sp 2 loses support 5 years after its release date OR 2 years after its predecessors release. Whichever is longer. The end of life policy is right here.
I'm no fanboi, but that statement isn't accurate.
Did they really mean qualified to learn? Or did they mean qualified to apply properly?
AJAX, and multiple other web technologies, suffer from being judged with criteria determined by the critic. In tech this translates into multile disciplines. UI guys love AJAX if used properly - the same build could be looked at from an app programmer's perspective as junk.
AJAX seems to address the cultural side of things. People love flashy things, especially if they can deliver 80% -90% of the functionality they want. An application developer may be able to deliver 100% of wanted functionality, but in a way that a user finds aesthetically displeasing.
I think this brings up an interesting point. When do developers start to realize that users will not conform to what they should do, but what they want to do? Learning the aspects of a development technology inside and out will not give a developer this edge. Paying attention to social aspects will.
I think that's what these guys meant when they said qualified to learn.
You're a fucking moron.
You joke, but in America you can sue bartenders and establishments that serve you if you get a DUI after drinking there.
Whats worse.
Voting yes to this trash or abstaining from voting so you can play both sides of the fence at reelection time as my Rep did?
yeah, but its Rock Hudson gay - Not emo gay.
No, they don't. The creator has a monopoly by the virtue of a system that grants copyright on creation. This is something that's only as new as the 1970s. Before that point, you had to actually register to obtain this monopoly.
When I paint a painting, or write an original manuscript - I have a monopoly on that item. Only one exists. You didn't understand what I was saying.
Wrong. Plagarism is the act of misattributing an idea as if it were one's own. Copyright infringement is misusing too much or in an unacceptable way part or whole of a copyrighted work. You can commit plagarism on works that aren't copyrighted. The fact is, some reference works can be copyrighted because the artful arrangement of information can be considered a creative work and hence copyrightable. Obviously the phone book isn't artful and can't be copyrighted.
You need to look at the definition for Plagiarism.
As for artists being able to mimic or copy each other, flat out copying wouldn't be any more copyrightable than using a xerox machine.
Not true. Sometimes what people are interested in buying is an artists style. The comparison of someone copying a masterwork by hand and using a xerox machine is inaccurate. The mechanism used for duplication makes all the difference in this area as it is a regarded element of these goods.
Actually, playing a work live could be considered a performance, and that entails paying money to the copyright holder. Further, samlping sections of a song and using them in your song is rather questionable, especially if you plan to copyright and sell such a song.
Sorry, playing a song live is not a performance. Performing a play is a performance. Performing a whole album by another band, recording the live show, and then selling the album is a performance. The content in question is taken into account on every matter. Stanford has pretty good material on the subject. Sampling is questionable in a case by case basis.
Again, fair use isn't so clear cut as to say that a lack of profit is sufficient to say that George Lucas is unable to stop people from using "Light Saber" in a work. This is especially the case when one is writing fiction of one's own and not simply citing it as a non-fiction reference. Obviously, non-fiction will have a smaller market effect on fiction than other fiction.
You're right. It also has to negatively impact the revenue generated by the creator's original work. See the Stanford link above.
How? Is the land the product of creativity (and I mean the land itself, not its usage which itself is not what land ownership is about; such would be land usageship)? I guess in some extent, managing to claim ownership of land is an amount of creativity, since clearly that's not an innate property of land. But the abstract idea of owning land stopped being creative and unique the second someone else was doing it too. The idea for land ownership is based on the innate finiteness of land. You can't copy land nor can two people utilize the same land in all ways at the same time. The same can't be said of copyrighted works.
You're over analyzing. The land is finite. The created work is finite at inception. Do not confuse the creative work (a finite resource) with the delivery vehicle of the creative work (often renewable, and in the case of digital infinte, resource). While the creative work may be emulated, duplicated, or built upon. The original work created is very finite.
Fair enough.
You changed tone of argument.
To maintain stock prices is one thing. To link to the corporation as a means of aligning google with people who have bought (and sold) rights to rainwater is another altogether. The original argument doesn't stand. Google is anything but a pawn. Their stock is worth much more than it was before their IPO. Thats VERY far from a margin call. That is unless they are taking out loans against their stock, in which case their morons.
They also aren't directed by a bunch of "me first" asshats. The founders stated this was by design so they wouldn't end up being forced to make ethically compromising choices for the purpose of increasing their stock value.
Nope, any ethically compromising choices are being made by the big 3 there, no one else. I'm not going to let them off the hook by attributing their policies to the "overwhelming forces of the market."