Actually, if the interview mentions anything about the IPO it would be a violation of the securities law. You cannot advertise an impending IPO, whether or not you have you have submited an application to the SEC.
Also, the timing of the articles release is only important if it occurs before the the SEC has approved the IPO. Once the IPO is approved (the prospectus is kosher and all) the companies are allowed to advertise.
Also, since Google should be a 12(g) company -- they have to report to the SEC becuase they have over 500 shareholders in a class of stock and a super-bung-load of revenue more than necessary to meet the requirement -- i'm pretty sure that as long as this interview is typical of other interviews they give it would be all good as long as they don't specifically plug the IPO. A reporting company is allowed to keep thier normal amount of advertising and such before an impending IPO, they just are not supposed to inflate thier publicity efforts before they get SEC approval for the offering.
You know it is sad, i'm procrastinating studing for my Securities Regulation final by blabering about Securities Regulation on Slashdot. And if you learn anything from the above post it should be that I am NOT qualified to give legal advice.
Well, I guess i'm glad you can't use your mod points then.
There is a big difference between the two points here, I hope you notice that. The first post was pissed off becuase MS was trying to patent too much stuff. My problem with the post was not that they were upset. My problem was that the poster picked some arbitrary number and then got pissed. Now the second post seems more logical (except the part about "-1 Flaimbait"). If a company all of a sudden jumps in to the patent game it can send the wrong signal to investors. On the otherhand, if i were an investor in a company with gazillions of dollars in the bank I might think they are just trying to capitalize on thier intellectual property.
Either way, the point you were really trying to make bears absolutly no resemblance to the orignal point.
Wow. Just how many fsking notches does one have to have to become a "real problem"? I find it weird that the 1000 patents a few years ago, along with the 2000 last year didn't create a problem. But I understand your point, "Bill, 3000 is just way to fsking much. Better take it down to 2999. Got it?"
All right people, move along. Just another irrationaly pissed off slashdotter here.
Actually not too lazy, but i did not notice the link the first time. After reviewing the link i noticed that this is NOT 1341 but someone's interpertation of 1341. While agrument by authority is a nice fallacy it is also illadvised because it patently overlooks the ACTUAL language of the statute.
And I quote " deposits... any matter... to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier." See 18 USC 1341. Well i think that UPS/Fedex is a private or commercial interstate carrier which the mail statute CURRENTLY applies too.
So did you bother googling the WHOLE statute,
Or were you too lazy?
For reference http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1341.html
Actually that is NOT the answer. The government may not exercise jurisdiction over Puff the Magic Dragon if he crosses over state line but that has dick to do with whether the government HAS jurisdiction, which is what the whole question was. I don't even think in the way off world of waxing philosophicaly that anyone could come up with a reason for the federal governemnt to exercise jurisdiction here, but they do have jurisdiction. Oh, and to clarify. Just because the feds have techinical jurisdiction DOES mean that the mail fraud statutes apply. Your response makes no sense. Let me see, just becuase the mail statutes apply doesn't mean they apply? I think what you are looking for is a policy justification of why the government would not exercise thier jurisdiction here. There are many policy reasons (not the least of which is that this is so small as to be pointless to waste federal funds on) but the fact remains that the only way the government can exercise its power to prosecute is over "specific commerce" that violates "specific statutes" of "regulatoin".
Actually i am pretty sure that using a private shipper (a la UPS or Fedex) is enough for federal jurisdiction if the package crosses state lines. The important part of the "mailing" in mail fraud is simply to act as a federal hook for jurisdiction. If it is mailed in the USPS then it doesn't have to cross state lines becuase federal jurisdiction arises from the use of a federal service.
The interisting question that arises in these senarios is whether the use of a private shipper intrastate is enough to create federal jurisdiction. This is a question for another day.
The point being that using a private shipper is enough for federal jurisdiction if it crosses state lines becuase of the commerce clause.
As far as decency regulations go, i think this may be a first amendment issue (i'm in speculation mode here). The USPS as an entity has the right to say what it will and will not ship (to a certain degree like any corporation has the right). So the USPS (per congressional mandate) says it won't ship porn. This is ok. But congress has to jump though more hoops (1st amendment) to place the same restrictions on private shippers. Now this is speculation, and it all could be a urban legand. But i'm pretty sure that congress has more power to regulate the USPS than private shippers becuase USPS is a federal entity.
Well it could quite possibly be both mail (UPS) and wire (internet to access e-mail and escrow account).
Basically the elements for mail and wire fraud are A scheme to defraud (about a material fact) Intent for the person to rely on the false information and a mail or wire interaction.
What is interesting under the law is that an actual fraud does not need to be commited if the elements are met (unlike commom law fraud/misrepresentation which requires damages). The point is that the orignal scammer is still liable even though he never actually got the chance to defraud MyNameIsJeff (becuase he never recieved the real Pbook).
Now the scarry part is not the M&W fraud but the fact that Jeff had help. This would be a conspiracy to commit M&W fraud which is a federal felony as well. So even if they meet the M&W fraud (which would be real hard considering that they posted EVERYTHING to the web for evidence) there doesn't need to be a conviction on the substanitive crime for a conspiracy conviction.
Conspiracy might be a bit more attenuated becuase the second person (Gizmo_gun) just kind of jumped in, so there may not be the requisite agreement...
But i am going to stop now. I don't like the feeling that i am analyzing stuff on slashdot better than i did on my white collar crime final.
just becuase they disclaim the implied warranties does not mean that the disclaimers are effective. Software is different than hardware on how it is treated. This is evidenced by the existance of UCITA, which originally started out to be UUC Article 2b but was to contraversial for the ALI and so it got the boot.
The point here is that hardware is still regulated under UCC Article 2 -- sale of goods -- which pretty much prevents effective denial of implied warranties.
For an implied warranty of fitness of a particular purpose the person selling the goods is supposed to have a reason to know of the need. Here there is no actual conveyance of that need so most likely there is no implied warranty.
It is somewhat debatable whether the creation of a good for a particular market [the extreem market] would not actually make this a violation of express warrant of merchantability.
Under the merchantibility argument if these cards could not be used in "extreme" environments then they would not be merchantable as goods in their class should be. Problem is that express warranties can be disclaimed.
So really what we probably have is a case where the memory providers are in line with the law but it looks pretty slimey.
Yeah a universal remote would be cool, but then there is the inevetable: "Please hold, I have to change the channel"
Or even worse "Please hold, I have to switch to the Cartoon Network to watch the Care Bears" cause you know everyone is watching the Care Bears, they just don't want to admit it..
The submitter of the story makes the observation that you can sell RAM for 100$ a Gig, but you can't make a living doing so. I think this important because it really sets up what we as the consumers need to know, how much do you have to sell RAM for to make a living. From the looks of it - with Toshiba and Micron both losing money - the market is selling below cost. Does anyone know enough about the manufacturing process to offer an educated estimate as to how much these chips cost to create. We really need to know this because market consolidation will only go on for so long before the major players (Micron, Samsung) decide that losing money isn't cool, stop buying up floundering competitors, and start making money again. A little price war isn't so bad because it allows the market to patrol it's self. Eventually though, this will wear off, and we as consumers should be aware of where the market is going so as to not be completely floored when the price bounces off the roof.
RAM may be more usefull, but my big ole block of gold will not be made worthless by DDR GOLD, GOLD 2700, or the ever overpriced RD-GOLD.
The problem with RAM price flux is that the price always does go back up, but often it is the result of a new RAM product entering the market (pc100, pc133 ect) rather than the old stuff shooting up in price (although this does happen some). This makes it very hard to arbitrage (buy low, sell high) the ram market, because you buy the old stuff low, and when the market jumps it is for the new stuff (meaning you get stuck holding the old RAM).
I know that it is funny and all to joke about millions of wrong answers a second and all, but isn't this already the case with normal computers. I know - at least the PIII/P4 and Athlon and i assume most other chips - have branch predictors that try and predict which branch to take (the itanium works mutiple branches). The point is that a good branch predictor is 95-98 percent accurate or 2-5% wrong. So it's really not that big a deal.
Actually, if you look at the frequency between the two dates (more would be usefull) we can expect another supernova around 2090. Seeing as how things like this don't follow a schedule, it is quite possible that a supernova could be missed by the time Super-K is repaired, or a replacement built.
I think in all the discussion about the relative fairness of the proposed punishment something has been lost - these computers have been running with distributed net for TWO YEARS. I think any lawyer can mitigate most of Georgia's claims by bringing up Georgia's obligation to properly maintain their own property. If the information techs, computers techs, financial auditors, ect. didn't notice the wasted bandwidth - and d. net has an icon when it is running, meaning that it was not being kept out of plain sight - then the culpability is probably more on the state than the installation tech.
As for the suggestion "Maybe it's best to wait for odd-numbered chip generations... Pentium Pentium? "
last time i checked were not the Pentium pro/II/III all 686 chips, therefor making the Pentium IV a 787 or and odd-numbered generation.. Just think we should hold Intel to the orginial number system it set up. Otherwise we might find ourselvs with a new numbering system everytime they mess up, or about once every 6 months....
Slashdot Mirror
Actually i was just thinking. Google has Froogle for cheapos, so Google should have Oogle for sickos, er I mean men.
Also, the timing of the articles release is only important if it occurs before the the SEC has approved the IPO. Once the IPO is approved (the prospectus is kosher and all) the companies are allowed to advertise.
Also, since Google should be a 12(g) company -- they have to report to the SEC becuase they have over 500 shareholders in a class of stock and a super-bung-load of revenue more than necessary to meet the requirement -- i'm pretty sure that as long as this interview is typical of other interviews they give it would be all good as long as they don't specifically plug the IPO. A reporting company is allowed to keep thier normal amount of advertising and such before an impending IPO, they just are not supposed to inflate thier publicity efforts before they get SEC approval for the offering.
You know it is sad, i'm procrastinating studing for my Securities Regulation final by blabering about Securities Regulation on Slashdot. And if you learn anything from the above post it should be that I am NOT qualified to give legal advice.
Do you mean jokes like this: If you bookmark your porn sites you don't need a special keyboard.
There is a big difference between the two points here, I hope you notice that. The first post was pissed off becuase MS was trying to patent too much stuff. My problem with the post was not that they were upset. My problem was that the poster picked some arbitrary number and then got pissed. Now the second post seems more logical (except the part about "-1 Flaimbait"). If a company all of a sudden jumps in to the patent game it can send the wrong signal to investors. On the otherhand, if i were an investor in a company with gazillions of dollars in the bank I might think they are just trying to capitalize on thier intellectual property.
Either way, the point you were really trying to make bears absolutly no resemblance to the orignal point.
All right people, move along. Just another irrationaly pissed off slashdotter here.
And I quote " deposits ... any matter... to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier." See 18 USC 1341. Well i think that UPS/Fedex is a private or commercial interstate carrier which the mail statute CURRENTLY applies too.
So did you bother googling the WHOLE statute,
Or were you too lazy?
For reference http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1341.html
Actually that is NOT the answer.
The government may not exercise jurisdiction over Puff the Magic Dragon if he crosses over state line but that has dick to do with whether the government HAS jurisdiction, which is what the whole question was.
I don't even think in the way off world of waxing philosophicaly that anyone could come up with a reason for the federal governemnt to exercise jurisdiction here, but they do have jurisdiction.
Oh, and to clarify. Just because the feds have techinical jurisdiction DOES mean that the mail fraud statutes apply. Your response makes no sense. Let me see, just becuase the mail statutes apply doesn't mean they apply?
I think what you are looking for is a policy justification of why the government would not exercise thier jurisdiction here. There are many policy reasons (not the least of which is that this is so small as to be pointless to waste federal funds on) but the fact remains that the only way the government can exercise its power to prosecute is over "specific commerce" that violates "specific statutes" of "regulatoin".
Actually i am pretty sure that using a private shipper (a la UPS or Fedex) is enough for federal jurisdiction if the package crosses state lines. The important part of the "mailing" in mail fraud is simply to act as a federal hook for jurisdiction. If it is mailed in the USPS then it doesn't have to cross state lines becuase federal jurisdiction arises from the use of a federal service.
The interisting question that arises in these senarios is whether the use of a private shipper intrastate is enough to create federal jurisdiction. This is a question for another day.
The point being that using a private shipper is enough for federal jurisdiction if it crosses state lines becuase of the commerce clause.
As far as decency regulations go, i think this may be a first amendment issue (i'm in speculation mode here). The USPS as an entity has the right to say what it will and will not ship (to a certain degree like any corporation has the right). So the USPS (per congressional mandate) says it won't ship porn. This is ok. But congress has to jump though more hoops (1st amendment) to place the same restrictions on private shippers. Now this is speculation, and it all could be a urban legand. But i'm pretty sure that congress has more power to regulate the USPS than private shippers becuase USPS is a federal entity.
Well it could quite possibly be both mail (UPS) and wire (internet to access e-mail and escrow account).
Basically the elements for mail and wire fraud are
A scheme to defraud (about a material fact)
Intent for the person to rely on the false information
and a mail or wire interaction.
What is interesting under the law is that an actual fraud does not need to be commited if the elements are met (unlike commom law fraud/misrepresentation which requires damages). The point is that the orignal scammer is still liable even though he never actually got the chance to defraud MyNameIsJeff (becuase he never recieved the real Pbook).
Now the scarry part is not the M&W fraud but the fact that Jeff had help. This would be a conspiracy to commit M&W fraud which is a federal felony as well. So even if they meet the M&W fraud (which would be real hard considering that they posted EVERYTHING to the web for evidence) there doesn't need to be a conviction on the substanitive crime for a conspiracy conviction.
Conspiracy might be a bit more attenuated becuase the second person (Gizmo_gun) just kind of jumped in, so there may not be the requisite agreement...
But i am going to stop now. I don't like the feeling that i am analyzing stuff on slashdot better than i did on my white collar crime final.
just becuase they disclaim the implied warranties does not mean that the disclaimers are effective. Software is different than hardware on how it is treated. This is evidenced by the existance of UCITA, which originally started out to be UUC Article 2b but was to contraversial for the ALI and so it got the boot.
The point here is that hardware is still regulated under UCC Article 2 -- sale of goods -- which pretty much prevents effective denial of implied warranties.
For an implied warranty of fitness of a particular purpose the person selling the goods is supposed to have a reason to know of the need. Here there is no actual conveyance of that need so most likely there is no implied warranty.
It is somewhat debatable whether the creation of a good for a particular market [the extreem market] would not actually make this a violation of express warrant of merchantability.
Under the merchantibility argument if these cards could not be used in "extreme" environments then they would not be merchantable as goods in their class should be. Problem is that express warranties can be disclaimed.
So really what we probably have is a case where the memory providers are in line with the law but it looks pretty slimey.
Yeah a universal remote would be cool, but then there is the inevetable:
"Please hold, I have to change the channel"
Or even worse "Please hold, I have to switch to the Cartoon Network to watch the Care Bears" cause you know everyone is watching the Care Bears, they just don't want to admit it..
The submitter of the story makes the observation that you can sell RAM for 100$ a Gig, but you can't make a living doing so. I think this important because it really sets up what we as the consumers need to know, how much do you have to sell RAM for to make a living. From the looks of it - with Toshiba and Micron both losing money - the market is selling below cost. Does anyone know enough about the manufacturing process to offer an educated estimate as to how much these chips cost to create. We really need to know this because market consolidation will only go on for so long before the major players (Micron, Samsung) decide that losing money isn't cool, stop buying up floundering competitors, and start making money again. A little price war isn't so bad because it allows the market to patrol it's self. Eventually though, this will wear off, and we as consumers should be aware of where the market is going so as to not be completely floored when the price bounces off the roof.
RAM may be more usefull, but my big ole block of gold will not be made worthless by DDR GOLD, GOLD 2700, or the ever overpriced RD-GOLD.
The problem with RAM price flux is that the price always does go back up, but often it is the result of a new RAM product entering the market (pc100, pc133 ect) rather than the old stuff shooting up in price (although this does happen some). This makes it very hard to arbitrage (buy low, sell high) the ram market, because you buy the old stuff low, and when the market jumps it is for the new stuff (meaning you get stuck holding the old RAM).
I know that it is funny and all to joke about millions of wrong answers a second and all, but isn't this already the case with normal computers. I know - at least the PIII/P4 and Athlon and i assume most other chips - have branch predictors that try and predict which branch to take (the itanium works mutiple branches). The point is that a good branch predictor is 95-98 percent accurate or 2-5% wrong. So it's really not that big a deal.
Actually, if you look at the frequency between the two dates (more would be usefull) we can expect another supernova around 2090. Seeing as how things like this don't follow a schedule, it is quite possible that a supernova could be missed by the time Super-K is repaired, or a replacement built.
I think in all the discussion about the relative fairness of the proposed punishment something has been lost - these computers have been running with distributed net for TWO YEARS. I think any lawyer can mitigate most of Georgia's claims by bringing up Georgia's obligation to properly maintain their own property. If the information techs, computers techs, financial auditors, ect. didn't notice the wasted bandwidth - and d. net has an icon when it is running, meaning that it was not being kept out of plain sight - then the culpability is probably more on the state than the installation tech.
ok, i don't know how to edit a message, but the pentium IV would be a 786, not a 787 - that would make it a math coprocessor...
As for the suggestion "Maybe it's best to wait for odd-numbered chip generations ... Pentium Pentium? "
last time i checked were not the Pentium pro/II/III all 686 chips, therefor making the Pentium IV a 787 or and odd-numbered generation.. Just think we should hold Intel to the orginial number system it set up. Otherwise we might find ourselvs with a new numbering system everytime they mess up, or about once every 6 months....