You may want to study the history of the controversy between creationism and evolution before saying something like "there weren't creationists around" in 1955. When Charles Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859, it was controversial. There was controversy in 1925 when John Scopes went on trial for teaching the principles of evolutionary theory in a public school. He lost, by the way, and the Act under which he was charged was not repealed until 1967.
My reply was more to the point that your proposal is essentially the dissolution of the corporation, which is not the equivalent of a year in jail for you. It's death.
But I agree this discussion seems to be going in circles and not anywhere productive.
So what you're saying is that as long as the government continues to recognize the existence of the corporation, all of their employees can comfortably live for a year with no salary. There's a wide range of difference between operating in the red and operating with no income at all.
If that actually happened, the effect on the advertising industry itself would be positively crushing. Which would send me weeping to my room, I can tell you.
That's true, a lot of MicroSoft's monopoly power comes from their influence over OEMs and retailers. Another idea I've had in the past (that you've just reminded me of) was to increase the cost for other corporations to do business with a corporation that had been found guilty of illegal practices. If a company has to pay an extra tax in order to use or install MicroSoft products, they're encouraged to start looking at options. And as someone else has pointed out, that tax money could be earmarked for advertising campaigns aimed at opening up the markets that MicroSoft's monopoly has closed.
I think the essence of what we're digging at here is the duality of corporations. On the one hand they are, in a sense, a separate entity. This is how the law seems to treat them today. On the other hand, they are a collective entity, made up of the people responsible for making decisions pertaining to the use of their resources.
Your explanation of the origin of incorporation is perfectly correct, according to my understanding. But for one reason or another the law (in America, at least) has over time extended that concept of incorporation to the point where people now talk about a corporation's right to Constitutionally protected free speech.
So I think what we're talking about is two different ways of looking at the same problem: that corporations are treated like people without a good understanding of how they differ from people in the mix. In essence there are no meaningful consequences to either the people running the corporation, nor to the corporation itself. What you're saying, as I understand it, is basically to stop looking at corporations as people and instead look at the people. What I'm saying is if you're going to look at corporations as people, you have to make the punishment fit not only the crime, but the criminal.
As I understand it, the concept of incorporation was created to overcome the chilling effect on commerce of the individual's natural reluctance to take on personal responsibility for a whole company. Basically what you're saying is take that protection away. You might have a hard time finding CEOs and directors, and they'd probably expect higher pay than they already receive.
So the totally ineffectual measures that've been taken to punish Microsoft for misusing its illegal monopoly to eliminate or marginalize its competition are going to be ineffectual for a longer period of time? That'll show 'em.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot punish a corporation the same way you punish an individual, because they don't care about the same things. There's only one thing a corporation values, so there's only one thing you can take away from one: market share. Pass a measure forcing Microsoft and its subsidiaries to halve their advertising budget for, say, five years.
That's a good point, why haven't we heard about these?
I do note, though, that the list in Wikipedia is much shorter than it is for other nationalities, just browsing around. Apparently there is something to this...
Slashdot Mirror
I personally like the part where he says he didn't tell anybody about his plans. Oh, crap, unless anybody read my profile on YouTube!
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain
I'm curious to know what does qualify as an invention.
You may want to study the history of the controversy between creationism and evolution before saying something like "there weren't creationists around" in 1955. When Charles Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859, it was controversial. There was controversy in 1925 when John Scopes went on trial for teaching the principles of evolutionary theory in a public school. He lost, by the way, and the Act under which he was charged was not repealed until 1967.
Go with 0.0.0.0 . Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses.
I run SSH on a non-standard port. Probes in the logs went away.
Nothing explains disco music.
My sister was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.
My reply was more to the point that your proposal is essentially the dissolution of the corporation, which is not the equivalent of a year in jail for you. It's death.
But I agree this discussion seems to be going in circles and not anywhere productive.
So what you're saying is that as long as the government continues to recognize the existence of the corporation, all of their employees can comfortably live for a year with no salary. There's a wide range of difference between operating in the red and operating with no income at all.
If that actually happened, the effect on the advertising industry itself would be positively crushing. Which would send me weeping to my room, I can tell you.
That's true, a lot of MicroSoft's monopoly power comes from their influence over OEMs and retailers. Another idea I've had in the past (that you've just reminded me of) was to increase the cost for other corporations to do business with a corporation that had been found guilty of illegal practices. If a company has to pay an extra tax in order to use or install MicroSoft products, they're encouraged to start looking at options. And as someone else has pointed out, that tax money could be earmarked for advertising campaigns aimed at opening up the markets that MicroSoft's monopoly has closed.
I think the essence of what we're digging at here is the duality of corporations. On the one hand they are, in a sense, a separate entity. This is how the law seems to treat them today. On the other hand, they are a collective entity, made up of the people responsible for making decisions pertaining to the use of their resources.
Your explanation of the origin of incorporation is perfectly correct, according to my understanding. But for one reason or another the law (in America, at least) has over time extended that concept of incorporation to the point where people now talk about a corporation's right to Constitutionally protected free speech.
So I think what we're talking about is two different ways of looking at the same problem: that corporations are treated like people without a good understanding of how they differ from people in the mix. In essence there are no meaningful consequences to either the people running the corporation, nor to the corporation itself. What you're saying, as I understand it, is basically to stop looking at corporations as people and instead look at the people. What I'm saying is if you're going to look at corporations as people, you have to make the punishment fit not only the crime, but the criminal.
Corporations live off their ability to do business. This would be more like locking you up for 6 months without food.
Wasn't the tobacco industry fined and the fines used to produce anti-smoking advertising campaigns? Seems like there's a precedent.
As I understand it, the concept of incorporation was created to overcome the chilling effect on commerce of the individual's natural reluctance to take on personal responsibility for a whole company. Basically what you're saying is take that protection away. You might have a hard time finding CEOs and directors, and they'd probably expect higher pay than they already receive.
I would say that the fact that you can only see two options, IE or no browser at all, is perhaps the best summary of exactly why this is a problem.
I think it's probably more about the software that you don't have the option of downloading because MicroSoft made sure that company doesn't exist.
It was something you could explain to a judge.
So the totally ineffectual measures that've been taken to punish Microsoft for misusing its illegal monopoly to eliminate or marginalize its competition are going to be ineffectual for a longer period of time? That'll show 'em.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot punish a corporation the same way you punish an individual, because they don't care about the same things. There's only one thing a corporation values, so there's only one thing you can take away from one: market share. Pass a measure forcing Microsoft and its subsidiaries to halve their advertising budget for, say, five years.
I could be crazy, but I have a feeling that identity thieves often operate for profit.
She's 13.
The thing MS knows how to secure is contracts. Once that's accomplished, they've never seen a need to go further and secure anything else.
That's a good point, why haven't we heard about these?
I do note, though, that the list in Wikipedia is much shorter than it is for other nationalities, just browsing around. Apparently there is something to this...
I have to ask... what colour is the sky in your world?