As Einstein famously postulated, "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
This has been widely regarded as _the_ supposition upon which all science rests. Basically, Einstein was specifying what so many scientists naturally assume, ie that the laws of this universe are everywhere uniform, which when understood in the context of 'frames of reference' gives a special stature to the role of observer. Stated another way, special relativity, and by extension all science, relies upon the fact that independent observers tend to observe phenomena according to uniform laws.
Now understand that this _is_ supposition. It is a matter of faith for scientists to assume that this is correct. This idea can not be proven anymore than a scientist can prove that He/She didn't just plant all this abundant evidence for evolution;-)
Actually, anyone who has experimented a little with psychotropic drugs can assure you that the length of a meter is _not_ uniform in _every_ reference frame.
That's the thing, BSD is _not_ allowed by this license. Read:
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions....Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License."
Distributing under a BSD or X11 license would necessarily "subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License." if said implementation were relicensed under the GPL.
But that is what they've done! By crying wolf so many times today, you haven't noticed that _one_ of the stories today actually is _true_! My guess, is the Slashdot infotisement article. Happy April Fools!
Well, slashdot ate some of the patch, but the point is, a simple addition of computer source code was all that was needed to fix this expoit, ie a single equals sign. Such bloat.
Have you ever written computer source code? I know that I have. Often you do fix bugs by expanding the size and scope of the program. Take for example the OpenSSH local root exploit that was revealed today. The following patch reveals that the bug was fixed with in fact more computer source code.
- if (id channels_alloc) { + if (id = channels_alloc) {
log("channel_lookup: %d: bad id", id);
return NULL;
}
I know horrible feature creep and bloat. So you can either subscribe to the Libertarian? view of computer bug fixing and lend your computer to many talented individuals that are working to solve computer bugs without even more source, who are not, by the way, college freshmean (We commonly refer to them as script kiddies;) Or, you can patch your machine like one of us normal idiots.
They didn't _need_ to produce evidence that Microsoft's monopoly was held because of ant-competitive acts. Justice Kollar-Kotelly balked at this argument! The Appeals court said that this evidence was required for the remedy of breaking up the company. And even that criterion seems to be arbitrary and would not likely stand appeal to the supremes. After all, how does one go about proving a hypothetical negative. Rather, Justice Kollar-Kotelly has rejected this argument and is not likely to let Justice go any further with it. IANAL, but IMHO, Justice Kollar-Kotelly is going to throw this settlement out because of violations to the tunney act relating to disclosure and the case will proceed with the remaining litigating states. What Justice does after this is anyone's guess, although I doubt they can just walk away from the case. It will be quite amusing if Justice and the Bush cronies are forced to tuck tail and side with the remaining litigating states once again.
"Ximian has made no guarantee to the community that this will remain the case. I have."
And I, for one thank you for this guarantee. I think you have done a hell of a good job with the Portable.NET project, but I don't think this is the time to go around labeling your project as the only Truly Free^TM.NET implementation. If Ximian does decide to pull a SourceForge in the future then I will be the first to call for a fork, but as it stands this decision does nothing to endanger Mono, in fact it would make it more difficult for Ximian to dual license because the code is now essentially public domain.
Let's be absolutely clear. Ximian is _not_ taking the code proprietary. In fact they are easing the restrictions to the source. In effect Ximian is giving up control of the Mono modules. Now, if this is a problem for individual developers (Ximian take note: it may very well be.) then by all means they should release under the LGPL, GPL, modified GPL, fork the code, or do as they wish. What I object to you is you using this issue to promote your project to the detriment of Mono by labeling it as not Truly Free^TM. You sound much more reasonable when you point out the legitimate differences between the projects.
You are way off here. Could you please point to one piece of Mono which is not licensed under a free license? I think it is despicable that you would choose to capitilize on this anouncement by declaring the Mono project to be _Non Free_! What are you on? The Mono licenses are all _Free Software_ licenses. Would you also label every XFree, BSD and a whole host of other great free software projects as non-free? Yes, Ximian could choose to dual license Mono with a proprietary license, but there would always remain a free alternative.
You should be ashamed of using just so much FUD to promote your own implemention. How about competing on the merits instead of trolling for publicity?!
Office was made apart of this trial when it came out that Microsoft tried to successfully blackmailed Apple to include Internet Explorer over Netscape or Microsoft would jeopardize the Office franchise on Apple computers. Any questions?
"Any, and I mean any god dammit, attempt to restrict access to source code is evil according to GNU Values."
That is a pretty strong statement and smacks in the face of the "Magna Carta" of those GNU Values, ie the GPL. The GPL _does_ restrict access to source code! Albeit, in a way that turns the traditional role of copyright on it's face, but then you are condemining _all_ restrictions on source code right;)
"Ximian is now evil. That they are now working with the Devil then should come as no surprise."
Please read this. Come on, how can you expect anyone to take you the least bit seriously. Haven't we all been more than reminded of what true evil is lately? Ximian is evil because they intend to sell a proprietary add-on to a product so that it can be used in conjunction with another proprietary product? Come on!
"Actually, it isn't possible to work with MS without selling your soul. By working with Microsoft you are explicitly telling the world that their licenses and policies and practicies should not be a reason to avoid doing business with MS."
What would you have us do O'Righteous One? Should we similarly brand IBM as evil? After all they do develop proprietary software... Do you suppose that we should not collaborate with IBM or refuse the fruits of there evil help in developing and promoting Linux?
Irony # 1: Paying M$ money (buying XBox) in order to run Linux on it. They will be crying all the way to the bank! They sell the XBox at a $100 loss so they can (hopefully) recoup there loss from game software which comes in at a nice $50 a pop.
To tell Standard Oil which oil pipeline they can and cannot buy, barring actual property theft of course, is sick.
Why stop there? Since all oil is just a means to energy, prohibit all energy production and distribution.
Every argument for violating Standard Oil's ability to choose which oil pipeline's to purchase reduces everyone's ability to purchase material goods.
Private Property, the basis of wealth, investment, prosperity, labor and freedom itself, is what is being attacked.
Just because "we" don't like Standard Oil it's ok to enslave them to the arbitrary power of the state?
Beware the DoJ and this power you so approve of as it is used upon your foe, for you WILL find that power used against you next.
Bob's a twit-
Are you smoking crack or what...
on
Interview With Linus
·
· Score: 1, Informative
What the hell are you talking about? AFAIK Transmeta is not affiliated with Microsoft in any way. If you are referring to Paul Allen then read the article, he was bought out.
I understand that the district court does not carry the same wieght as some higher courts, but this is still entered into the legal record and it's something that lawyers can draw upon for future cases with similar issues. Just having the opinions laid out so well and documented in the legal record is important. When making judgements courts often rely upon prior precedent and so this opinion should be useful.
Yah, it really bothers me to. It's just endemic of the dumbed down america. It comes from the same mentality that allows anyone with an agenda to invoke the word "terrorism" or "patriotism" to sell there ideas. Really pathetic if you ask me. If this case is really so important to the national economy (a point I do not dispute) then it would seem it is in all of our interests to get it right instead of just sweeping it under the carpet and acting like it doesn't exist.
Microsoft, "How shall we hoodwink the huddled masses today?"
"The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."
IANAL, but this seems like they are basically making a tentative claim towards the illegitimacy of "licensing" software in general. This appears absolutely _huge_! The Doctrine of First Sale is might be back:)
"... the Third Circuit found that the terms of a contract were formed when the parties shipped, received and paid for the product. Therefore, the software shrinkwrap agreement constituted additional terms to the contract, and under Uniform Commercial Code 2-207 (governing commercial counter-offers), these terms were invalid without express assent by the purchaser."
Again IANAL, but if I understand correctly they are saying that even if software is transacted through "licenses" and EULA's instead of actual sale, then the EULA's are not a valid agreement because strong assent is not given by both parties.
"The Court finds it unnecessary to reach the question of the general validity of shrinkwrap licenses at this stage because the Court has determined that SoftMan is not bound by the EULA because there was no assent to its terms."
According to the court Adobe is not likely to win on the merits and even if they were the court believes the transaction is a sale and governed by the Doctrine of First Sale and that EULA's are not enforceable contracts because they lack strong assent.
Perhaps CSharp will surpass Java in the hearts and minds of programmers in the years to come...? _Perhaps_!
Basically the only reasons this article gives for this supposed eventuality is: "Java" is "bulky, slow, and buggy." and "Now Java just plain feels old."
And then the author has the audacity to say, "Sun is giving up, descending to name-calling."
Just some more FUD. Nothing to see here. Move along.
With statements like this you most definitely _ARE_ a Microsoft Apologist!
Netscape was well on there way to selling there browser. This is a fact. Then along came IE bundled with Windows and this made it nearly impossible. Yes, IE has continued to improve and this has undoubtedly contributed to it's success, but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft _Illegally_ bundled IE with there Monopoly browser...! That is just a fact and you are apologizing for it.
Finally, your sad commentary on Konq's inclusion in KDE gives your allegiance away. KDE _IS NOT AN OS_! It is a suite of desktop applications which can be made to run on several different OS's including Linux, BSD, OSX, Windows and other Unix OS's. Furthermore you _CAN_ disentangle Konqueror from KDE and there is no licensing terms which prohibit this and or proclude other browsers from being shipped with KDE. You are grasping at straws and it is obvious. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE.
That is incorrect and part of the reason they are in this mess. They would not allow some OEM's to ship there computers with Netscape pre-installed. So the home user could not chose Netscape. Similarly, if they proclude OEM's from bundling AOL Instant Messenger this _is_ taking away choice from the OEM and indirectly taking away choice from there customers.
And do not tell me they could just download the program... If this were sufficient choice then Microsoft would not be interested in precluding OEM's from including the program with the shipped computer. Microsoft understands that software shipped with the OEM preinstalled is a _HUGE_ competitive advantage over software which must be installed by the home user. If this were not so then they would not mind disentangling IE or stopping OEM's from shipping Netscape or AOL IM.
I consider the bundling of Internet Explorer into Microsoft Windows 95 and all future browsers to be Illegal and so did a federal judge.
Fact: Before IE there was Netscape. A standalone program which was hugely successful. It was not bundled with any OS and the creators of Netscape were well on there way to a profitable business by selling the program.
Microsoft saw Netscape as a competitive threat so they created a rival program and bundled it with there OS which had a monopoly. They refused to disentangle the browser from the OS and gave it away, thereby using there monopoly in operating systems to grow there market in browsers.
That is where I draw the line at "illegal feature" and a federal court judge agrees with me. By the way, look at the transcripts from the trial. Bill Gates said as much through emails to various people all over the industry. Finally, Microsoft is a hugely successful company in part because they engage in _ILLEGAL_ conduct to bully there competitors and stifle the industry. If that is what other companies are aiming for then that is not something to be proud of.
Well I for one did see your comment;) "The law doesn't mean shit." Taken with your other remarks, I would say this is an interesting perspective. Of course you are right in a cynical sense...
It is the people who apply the law, the people who write the law, the people who vote for the people who write the law that "mean shit". I guess I am an optimist, I think that even if the states agree to this the Judge will throw it out.
I mean she is not bought and paid for and it is clear that this preliminary remedy does not address the infringing issues. After all another federal court judge from her circuit found Microsoft guilty.
I too am a libertarian, but I advocate a limited penalty not one where the government is actively monitoring the company with a panel of some sort. This is just ripe for endless headaches.
They _have_ been found guilty in a federal court of law for bundling features into there operating system. That is a fact Jack!
"You seem to want to make it illegal for Microsoft to improve their operating system. This hurts everyone."
If you mean "improve their operating system" by bundling features in the same way that they have been found guilty of then, guess what, IT IS ILLEGAL! See above.
"Why do you want to hurt everyone just so you can feel better about using your alternative os?"
Are you saying that Microsoft breaking the law is good for everyone? If this is the case than perhaps you should be lobbying your congressman to change the law, because Microsoft _IS_ guilty of breaking it.
I have some news for you apologists: Even if Microsoft successfully pays off the Justice Department and the States agree to this settlement, the judge does not have to. If she finds that the settlement is unlikely to fix the monopolistic behavior, then she can impose her own fix. Microsoft will have to pay off the judge next and that is most definitely against the law.
I think I understand where we disagree. You are basically saying that in an "evolutionary context" fitness is _defined by_ how many offspring a given organism has. I disagree. I am saying that in every context including evolution the amount of offspring an organism has is _defined by_ how fit that organism is. I think you are taking the cart before the horse.
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzzzt, you're wrong ;-)
;-)
As Einstein famously postulated, "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
This has been widely regarded as _the_ supposition upon which all science rests. Basically, Einstein was specifying what so many scientists naturally assume, ie that the laws of this universe are everywhere uniform, which when understood in the context of 'frames of reference' gives a special stature to the role of observer. Stated another way, special relativity, and by extension all science, relies upon the fact that independent observers tend to observe phenomena according to uniform laws.
Now understand that this _is_ supposition. It is a matter of faith for scientists to assume that this is correct. This idea can not be proven anymore than a scientist can prove that He/She didn't just plant all this abundant evidence for evolution
Actually, anyone who has experimented a little with psychotropic drugs can assure you that the length of a meter is _not_ uniform in _every_ reference frame.
So you see, it's faith all the way down!
That's the thing, BSD is _not_ allowed by this license. Read:
...Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License."
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions.
Distributing under a BSD or X11 license would necessarily "subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License." if said implementation were relicensed under the GPL.
But that is what they've done! By crying wolf so many times today, you haven't noticed that _one_ of the stories today actually is _true_! My guess, is the Slashdot infotisement article. Happy April Fools!
Well, slashdot ate some of the patch, but the point is, a simple addition of computer source code was all that was needed to fix this expoit, ie a single equals sign. Such bloat.
Have you ever written computer source code? I know that I have. Often you do fix bugs by expanding the size and scope of the program. Take for example the OpenSSH local root exploit that was revealed today. The following patch reveals that the bug was fixed with in fact more computer source code.
;) Or, you can patch your machine like one of us normal idiots.
- if (id channels_alloc) {
+ if (id = channels_alloc) {
log("channel_lookup: %d: bad id", id);
return NULL;
}
I know horrible feature creep and bloat. So you can either subscribe to the Libertarian? view of computer bug fixing and lend your computer to many talented individuals that are working to solve computer bugs without even more source, who are not, by the way, college freshmean (We commonly refer to them as script kiddies
So, a math problem should be solved with more math?
Your first book was terrible, why do you think you should write another one?
Your first argument had some logical flaws, why do you insist on continuing to reason?
Let me get this straight, you have a bug in your computer source code, so you are going to write even more source to fix it?
Explain, please, how this works?
They didn't _need_ to produce evidence that Microsoft's monopoly was held because of ant-competitive acts. Justice Kollar-Kotelly balked at this argument! The Appeals court said that this evidence was required for the remedy of breaking up the company. And even that criterion seems to be arbitrary and would not likely stand appeal to the supremes. After all, how does one go about proving a hypothetical negative. Rather, Justice Kollar-Kotelly has rejected this argument and is not likely to let Justice go any further with it. IANAL, but IMHO, Justice Kollar-Kotelly is going to throw this settlement out because of violations to the tunney act relating to disclosure and the case will proceed with the remaining litigating states. What Justice does after this is anyone's guess, although I doubt they can just walk away from the case. It will be quite amusing if Justice and the Bush cronies are forced to tuck tail and side with the remaining litigating states once again.
"Ximian has made no guarantee to the community that this will remain the case. I have."
.NET implementation. If Ximian does decide to pull a SourceForge in the future then I will be the first to call for a fork, but as it stands this decision does nothing to endanger Mono, in fact it would make it more difficult for Ximian to dual license because the code is now essentially public domain.
And I, for one thank you for this guarantee. I think you have done a hell of a good job with the Portable.NET project, but I don't think this is the time to go around labeling your project as the only Truly Free^TM
Let's be absolutely clear. Ximian is _not_ taking the code proprietary. In fact they are easing the restrictions to the source. In effect Ximian is giving up control of the Mono modules. Now, if this is a problem for individual developers (Ximian take note: it may very well be.) then by all means they should release under the LGPL, GPL, modified GPL, fork the code, or do as they wish. What I object to you is you using this issue to promote your project to the detriment of Mono by labeling it as not Truly Free^TM. You sound much more reasonable when you point out the legitimate differences between the projects.
Rhys,
You are way off here. Could you please point to one piece of Mono which is not licensed under a free license? I think it is despicable that you would choose to capitilize on this anouncement by declaring the Mono project to be _Non Free_! What are you on? The Mono licenses are all _Free Software_ licenses. Would you also label every XFree, BSD and a whole host of other great free software projects as non-free? Yes, Ximian could choose to dual license Mono with a proprietary license, but there would always remain a free alternative.
You should be ashamed of using just so much FUD to promote your own implemention. How about competing on the merits instead of trolling for publicity?!
Office was made apart of this trial when it came out that Microsoft tried to successfully blackmailed Apple to include Internet Explorer over Netscape or Microsoft would jeopardize the Office franchise on Apple computers. Any questions?
"Any, and I mean any god dammit, attempt to restrict access to source code is evil according to GNU Values."
;)
That is a pretty strong statement and smacks in the face of the "Magna Carta" of those GNU Values, ie the GPL. The GPL _does_ restrict access to source code! Albeit, in a way that turns the traditional role of copyright on it's face, but then you are condemining _all_ restrictions on source code right
"Ximian is now evil. That they are now working with the Devil then should come as no surprise."
Please read this. Come on, how can you expect anyone to take you the least bit seriously. Haven't we all been more than reminded of what true evil is lately? Ximian is evil because they intend to sell a proprietary add-on to a product so that it can be used in conjunction with another proprietary product? Come on!
"Actually, it isn't possible to work with MS without selling your soul. By working with Microsoft you are explicitly telling the world that their licenses and policies and practicies should not be a reason to avoid doing business with MS."
What would you have us do O'Righteous One? Should we similarly brand IBM as evil? After all they do develop proprietary software... Do you suppose that we should not collaborate with IBM or refuse the fruits of there evil help in developing and promoting Linux?
I had no problems with ripping this cd. I used grip and ripped to ogg format.
Irony # 1: Paying M$ money (buying XBox) in order to run Linux on it. They will be crying all the way to the bank! They sell the XBox at a $100 loss so they can (hopefully) recoup there loss from game software which comes in at a nice $50 a pop.
Irony # 2: The joke is actually on you.
To tell Standard Oil which oil pipeline they can and cannot buy, barring actual property theft of course, is sick.
Why stop there? Since all oil is just a means to energy, prohibit all energy production and distribution.
Every argument for violating Standard Oil's ability to choose which oil pipeline's to purchase reduces everyone's ability to purchase material goods.
Private Property, the basis of wealth, investment, prosperity, labor and freedom itself, is what is being attacked.
Just because "we" don't like Standard Oil it's ok to enslave them to the arbitrary power of the state?
Beware the DoJ and this power you so approve of as it is used upon your foe, for you WILL find that power used against you next.
Bob's a twit-
What the hell are you talking about? AFAIK Transmeta is not affiliated with Microsoft in any way. If you are referring to Paul Allen then read the article, he was bought out.
I understand that the district court does not carry the same wieght as some higher courts, but this is still entered into the legal record and it's something that lawyers can draw upon for future cases with similar issues. Just having the opinions laid out so well and documented in the legal record is important. When making judgements courts often rely upon prior precedent and so this opinion should be useful.
Yah, it really bothers me to. It's just endemic of the dumbed down america. It comes from the same mentality that allows anyone with an agenda to invoke the word "terrorism" or "patriotism" to sell there ideas. Really pathetic if you ask me. If this case is really so important to the national economy (a point I do not dispute) then it would seem it is in all of our interests to get it right instead of just sweeping it under the carpet and acting like it doesn't exist.
Microsoft, "How shall we hoodwink the huddled masses today?"
"The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."
:)
IANAL, but this seems like they are basically making a tentative claim towards the illegitimacy of "licensing" software in general. This appears absolutely _huge_! The Doctrine of First Sale is might be back
"... the Third Circuit found that the terms of a contract were formed when the parties shipped, received and paid for the product. Therefore, the software shrinkwrap agreement constituted additional terms to the contract, and under Uniform Commercial Code 2-207 (governing commercial counter-offers), these terms were invalid without express assent by the purchaser."
Again IANAL, but if I understand correctly they are saying that even if software is transacted through "licenses" and EULA's instead of actual sale, then the EULA's are not a valid agreement because strong assent is not given by both parties.
"The Court finds it unnecessary to reach the question of the general validity of shrinkwrap licenses at this stage because the Court has determined that SoftMan is not bound by the EULA because there was no assent to its terms."
According to the court Adobe is not likely to win on the merits and even if they were the court believes the transaction is a sale and governed by the Doctrine of First Sale and that EULA's are not enforceable contracts because they lack strong assent.
Perhaps CSharp will surpass Java in the hearts and minds of programmers in the years to come...? _Perhaps_!
Basically the only reasons this article gives for this supposed eventuality is: "Java" is "bulky, slow, and buggy." and "Now Java just plain feels old."
And then the author has the audacity to say, "Sun is giving up, descending to name-calling."
Just some more FUD. Nothing to see here. Move along.
With statements like this you most definitely _ARE_ a Microsoft Apologist!
Netscape was well on there way to selling there browser. This is a fact. Then along came IE bundled with Windows and this made it nearly impossible. Yes, IE has continued to improve and this has undoubtedly contributed to it's success, but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft _Illegally_ bundled IE with there Monopoly browser...! That is just a fact and you are apologizing for it.
Finally, your sad commentary on Konq's inclusion in KDE gives your allegiance away. KDE _IS NOT AN OS_! It is a suite of desktop applications which can be made to run on several different OS's including Linux, BSD, OSX, Windows and other Unix OS's. Furthermore you _CAN_ disentangle Konqueror from KDE and there is no licensing terms which prohibit this and or proclude other browsers from being shipped with KDE. You are grasping at straws and it is obvious. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE.
That is incorrect and part of the reason they are in this mess. They would not allow some OEM's to ship there computers with Netscape pre-installed. So the home user could not chose Netscape. Similarly, if they proclude OEM's from bundling AOL Instant Messenger this _is_ taking away choice from the OEM and indirectly taking away choice from there customers.
And do not tell me they could just download the program... If this were sufficient choice then Microsoft would not be interested in precluding OEM's from including the program with the shipped computer. Microsoft understands that software shipped with the OEM preinstalled is a _HUGE_ competitive advantage over software which must be installed by the home user. If this were not so then they would not mind disentangling IE or stopping OEM's from shipping Netscape or AOL IM.
I consider the bundling of Internet Explorer into Microsoft Windows 95 and all future browsers to be Illegal and so did a federal judge.
Fact: Before IE there was Netscape. A standalone program which was hugely successful. It was not bundled with any OS and the creators of Netscape were well on there way to a profitable business by selling the program.
Microsoft saw Netscape as a competitive threat so they created a rival program and bundled it with there OS which had a monopoly. They refused to disentangle the browser from the OS and gave it away, thereby using there monopoly in operating systems to grow there market in browsers.
That is where I draw the line at "illegal feature" and a federal court judge agrees with me. By the way, look at the transcripts from the trial. Bill Gates said as much through emails to various people all over the industry. Finally, Microsoft is a hugely successful company in part because they engage in _ILLEGAL_ conduct to bully there competitors and stifle the industry. If that is what other companies are aiming for then that is not something to be proud of.
Well I for one did see your comment ;) "The law doesn't mean shit." Taken with your other remarks, I would say this is an interesting perspective. Of course you are right in a cynical sense...
It is the people who apply the law, the people who write the law, the people who vote for the people who write the law that "mean shit". I guess I am an optimist, I think that even if the states agree to this the Judge will throw it out.
I mean she is not bought and paid for and it is clear that this preliminary remedy does not address the infringing issues. After all another federal court judge from her circuit found Microsoft guilty.
I too am a libertarian, but I advocate a limited penalty not one where the government is actively monitoring the company with a panel of some sort. This is just ripe for endless headaches.
You Microsoft Apologists...!
"There are no laws against bundling features."
They _have_ been found guilty in a federal court of law for bundling features into there operating system. That is a fact Jack!
"You seem to want to make it illegal for Microsoft to improve their operating system. This hurts everyone."
If you mean "improve their operating system" by bundling features in the same way that they have been found guilty of then, guess what, IT IS ILLEGAL! See above.
"Why do you want to hurt everyone just so you can feel better about using your alternative os?"
Are you saying that Microsoft breaking the law is good for everyone? If this is the case than perhaps you should be lobbying your congressman to change the law, because Microsoft _IS_ guilty of breaking it.
I have some news for you apologists: Even if Microsoft successfully pays off the Justice Department and the States agree to this settlement, the judge does not have to. If she finds that the settlement is unlikely to fix the monopolistic behavior, then she can impose her own fix. Microsoft will have to pay off the judge next and that is most definitely against the law.
I think I understand where we disagree. You are basically saying that in an "evolutionary context" fitness is _defined by_ how many offspring a given organism has. I disagree. I am saying that in every context including evolution the amount of offspring an organism has is _defined by_ how fit that organism is. I think you are taking the cart before the horse.