If engineers signed off on the use of the epoxy for the panel supports then those engineers are at fault. Engineers don't hand off designs to construction crews and wipe their hands of it from then on. They have to approve changes in the design and do their own inspections of the construction to make sure it meets the design.
not at all, it's the engineers job to specify the materials, and the contractor's job to go back to the engineer if there are unforseen deviations... more than that, it's the inspector's job to keep the contractors honest! If what's been said is truely the case, the blame and liability both civil and criminal lies with the inspectors that signed off on the construction... There's three parties for a reason. Engineers can't be responsible for workmanship. Often they don't get to pic who builds the project or even order the materials. That's what management and Inspections are for. To not perform those steps, or worse to knowingly shortcut them can be a criminal offense even if nobody ever gets hurt. I've done enough Medical, mil-spec, and automotive work in a QA/supervisor capacity, to know if you can't prove your inspections are meaningful, and correct and you initial it, YOU can be personally liable for the company breaking contract and maybe even criminally liable. even if the parts are never ever bad! And that's just for "100 hammers" and car parts.. that this occurs in govt contracts is really quite upsetting.
but the epoxy would be far tougher than the cement it's bored into. In small quantities epoxy is more than strong enough.. in fact much stronger than cement. What you described would make perfect sense and save tons of time and money by not requiring the anchor points be painstakingly welded to the internal rebar of the concrete. Now I can see really quickly where the QA trouble is. Epoxy is NOT a magic bullet where you just super glue the stuff together and it's automaticaly invincible. But there's no need to continue to use 50 year old construction techiniques that require huge amounts of manpower and multiple rework just because some guys on the ground refuse to update their work practices.
One of the first things lego needs to do is allow Gumstix to make a lego casing for their little computers to control a NTX robot. There's already a great hacker community around the Gumstix platform just like the Lego platform.. It's a match made in OSS heaven. Short synopsis of Gumstix is a stripped out sharp Zaraus motherboard (like a slightly large stick of gum) with various attachments and running Linux.
Right now Lego's new creation will be more Open Source friendly than ever. Some of the people on the short list were the guys that created LeJOS... a Java-like programming language for RCX. Almost all of the programing tools for RCX were rewritten by hobbists and with Open source licenses. Please Lego, Stay away from the BEAST that is Microsoft. Sure MS could probably do better, but it would be a "slap in the face" to all the help from the community that's kept Lego around this long.
but there's still a lack of basic parts on the shelves. They need to remember the days of "just bricks" when all you got was a bucket of 2x4's... true they were "boring" but with the new sets you can't get enough pieces to build anything substantial. I know you can get them online, but what they really need is a box of "just blocks" 2x4's and bigger in a variety of colors.
the other issue is almost the other extreme with mindstorms. They need better pieces in order to make more useful models. Once you get past a certian size.. about 12" in any direction they "techinic" models become fragile and unweildly to PLAY with. Then none of the motors and such can power the device.. at least not Lego supplied ones. I know NTX was built with some of these issues in mind.. mainly the "no studs" approach so models will be more "usable".
this is where I would differ from what's written and this is changed from the last draft. I think they even worded it wrong. I think the author confused works and services with allowing the software to run on hardware that's two different things.
You should be able to download the source from the distributor and load it into the machine. The orginal V2 draft only mentioned encryption keys required to run the code on hardware not connect to services. The second part is too far, I'd like to see the reasoning on it. Why should a manufacturer have to support your modifications on their network or allow their media to run without protection. The classic example is Tivo. Once TiVo has cable card support and HDMI they won't be legally allowed to give you that access to certian things because you may do something illegal with the machine, like copy DVDs or steal cable tv. On the other hand, they do need to give the necessary drivers and tools to properly use the hardware, that's a slightly different thing. The situation becomes sticky when regulations are involved. Things like Wifi where the engineers got "cheap" and relied on sofware drivers to maintain regulatory compliance is where the real problem is. With DMCA, they just do it anyway and sue anybody who tells. Problem is that it excludes huge numbers of people from the device when they should be using hardwired chips for the firmware.
exactly, HARDWARE can't be free, don't try to hide the cost in subsriptions or ads, it's not free, so exect people to pay for it... and your company to make a profit off it! It's only in the last 10 years companies have tried to "recover" the real cost of products by "selling" them below cost and expecting to make it up on some overpriced service. They even got DMCA passed to try to make that business model "legal" but it will never work. Of course with a deep pockets company like the telcos, cable or MS funding the projects, they'll drive the legit makers out of business unless they play too.
but not if they want to use GPL'd source code! That's what everybody seems to forget. GPL is only a license for redistributing or modifying software...not and EULA. If the hardware maker doesn't agree with the new GPL terms, stop using GPL in their products! That's just as easy as telling us we can choose to buy their product on their terms or not.
exactly, the whole point of the provision is to make "tivo"-ization out-of-bounds. Remember how tivo uses linux. They make the source code available, but you can't actually run the code on the system and use it as a tivo. I was looking at the wording yesterday and need to look at it again, but it looks like there are other problems with that section to address. As far as hardware only running signed code, that is EAXCTLY the point.. the provision is to give the downloader of the source any keys necessary to compile and run the program on your hardware.
Remember, the GPL started because a printer manufacturer wouldn't provide a professor code to use last year's printer on this year's server... that's what it's all about!!!
isn't there already prior art for this? I thought there were 2 or 3 companies already doing this, many were in South america, so that may not be "prior" art. Also, wouldn't netzero qualify... they didn't give away a whole PC, but they had a model of ads-for-service 5 years ago.
It's about cherry-picking the best stuff for MS to sell and letting the "masses" handle the rest. Also, OSS doesn't mean cross platform. There's quite a bit of OSS.NET stuff out there, but of course it's tied only to Windows. PHBs still won't see the difference between the two so they'll continue to be locked in...probably more tightly because the "free" stuff will be built on more of the MS core.
Like I've said before, this is MS promising to eat all the other ISVs' lunch. MS just wants to play the "free" & "bundled" cards to look like competition while they cherry-pick all the profitable parts of the software industry for themselves. Also, I think MS has learned that OSS isn't all bad. Once real lawyers and professionals look at the OSS licenses without bias, it's really no threat to MS on the utilities and apps front... Unlike all the "freeware" and "shareware" stuff out there, with OSS you know where you stand, if they decide to implement something themselves people won't be comming out of the woodwork that MS "stole" their little hobby app.
When will the american public wake up and realize we have he ability to conquer just about anybody. sure a few pot-shots get thru, but that's the price of being on top. If we give up the freedoms that got us on top then we won't be there much longer.
IT just dawned on me, but most CEOs carry quite high personal liability insurance for civil cases that might arise if the company or investors sue them personally as long as it's not a criminal mater. He's probably already got insurance paying for part of this already, but he'll still need his own money to keep the insurance company from settling instead of fighting it out.
That's the worst idea ever. The president was NEVER supposed to be elected by popular vote. The Framers hated that idea to the core. It's a bit of a "states rights" thing but it's up to the states individually to determine how they will cast their votes. There's nothing in the Constitution itself that says people are suppose to vote for senators or presidents. To the Framers, that choice was supposed to be made by the officially elected state government. That way somebody smart, and already elected once was making the choice for who the next higher up officeholder would be. On the surface it seems anti-democratic, but in reality, many of our Federal govt problems are directly related to Federal elections and officers being separate and disconnected from the lower branches of government. Think of how fast all the issues with Bush would be resolved if he and the senate had to answer not just to the idea of "voters" but to specific branches of state government.. Where would we be if our state legislatures or governors could call our Federal Senators on the carpet and demand their votes the way the States demand it to be because they appointed them, not the voter sheep. We'd see a much higher quality of govt if the feds were responsible to somebody local not "everybody" in a nebulous get elected next term way.
but Intel is already under investigation for monopoly practices... if it wasn't for AMD's heroic attempt at competition, we wouldn't be as far as we are now. Intel is using their near monopoly on processors to force OEMS to purchase bundled chipsets, graphics chips and wireless cards. By it self, it's not wrong, but look how crappy the market is because for graphics because intel "encourages" OEMS to use their stuff instead of combining parts. Intel is nowhere near MS level of "evilness" but they still throw "discounts" to keep big customers in line from choosing too much AMD. Also, look how long it took Nvidia to get their "bus" license, and how quickly they come out and take ATIs away before the ink is even dry. Don't forget how intel got their graphics to start with, they "partnered" with Real3D to make add in cards...then hijacked the development team and "bought" the company out later.
But the very nature of Intel integrated "everything" is horribly anti competitive to the chipset and graphics makers. Intel is bundling chipset, wireless, and graphics for only slightly more than the chipset.. and tying that to the OEM's marketing (centrino?) and processor costs. ATI is just about pushed out of the low end "default" graphics market for intel. I was just at the store and almost all the AMD notebooks and a good portion of the desktops were sporting ATI chipsets and graphics. That's where AMD is going with this. Now they can gain revenue by the addition of chipsets and graphics, not to mention sweeten the OEM deal by making the costs and engineering lower. I'd have liked to see Nvidia, but their prices are considerably higher than ATI's. Also, the OEMS seem to prefer dealing with ATI... many have been using ATI for a long time...that's another in road for AMD sales. I just hope AMD/ATI cleans up house and starts putting real graphics out there. This silly stuff of 3/4 of the new PCs on the shelf, not for gamming or multimedia (worse, even with MCE installed!) is getting awful. We could really dream (or smoke good stuff) and think AMD/ATI could almost start their own brand.. and actually make money selling a Linux "platform" but I'd doubt that.
This is how the new "anti terrorist" game works. Getting any info is legal for the police also, but contracting to PIs is quicker, then you get an "anamyous tip" where to supeona for the legit information in court. This reaks of "the rat" was about to turn the authorities out publically and we can't have that!
Remember how the feds wanted to "buy" information from "contractors" post 9/11. Chances are this is some kind of payback for his "good work". He was probably about to announce that he used his contacts to get information and that would be really bad for the FBI to show just how out of line they are. So they lock him up because he would make them look REALLY bad.
if you support Apple, just your itunes music is locked.. and it's a pretty flimsy lock. It's trivial to copy itunes songs to something without DRM... and without breaking any laws.
On the other hand, if you go the MS route, you continue MS dominance and feed the execs exactly what they want to hear. MS will continue to lock more and more suff down soon we'll have to pay for EVERYTHING!
The whole problem is that the W3C needs corp interest, patents, and money to stay in the game. If the W3C had to go it alone, all the individual corporate "members" would gut it like a fish in the courts. The current problem is that they've stopped writing good, simple, clean specs. With all the corporate interest the specs end up being one of two things: a) a "weapon" to punish who ever is on top of an industry a the moment by the threat of making it all "free" or b) attempt to skew the specs so only corporate developers could ever actually implement the whole thing. The result is that the specs are too big to be useful, so the big players all do their own thing anyway.. just how companies like Adobe, MS, IBM, etc would like it. I'm sure it's not deliberate on the part of individual contributing developers, but when the companies don't actively back up the results of the work with shipping products (like IE which hasn't been improved for 5 years!!!) everybody "knows" where the priorities like and nothing gets DONE.
The orginal poster may need to use some windows only apps, and might be invested in a custom environment they can't change just yet. ReactOS would allow you to put whole worstations on it until you were ready to make the jump to *nix. That's the point of the thing, to have a MS compatible OSS stack. It's not perfectly utopian Free Software, but it is pragmatic. Right now MS biggest competitor for Vista isn't Linux or OSx it's their own Windows 2000 for business or windows 98 for home users. MS needs to talk all the retired moms & dads out there into upgrading whole computers for minimal benifit. IF ReactOS adds the ability to not upgrade at ALL but still keep security then MS could be in more trouble!
But what kind of hypritical Slashdotter would but a M$ only player? If your trying to get a way from Microsoft enough to use Linux I don't think your going to jump back into bed with the DRM'd, Trecherous computing, Privacy stealing, evil-capitalist beast again.
personally I think the case is questionable at best, more than likely this is Micron, the last US RAM manufacturer, using it's political clout to disrupt other companies business.
Why do I think it's not a real case? Because at the same time this was supposedly going on, Micron also accused Hynix 9the most famous, but several other too) of accepting government (Korean) bailouts because they nearly went bankrupt from the free fall of the dropping prices. Micron was arguing in the past that during the same period Hynix was illegally LOWERING the price of chips. That case is already been decided in court.
You can't have it both ways. More of what happened is the big OEM ram USERS pushed for lower and lower prices tying up inventories. The companies may have agreed to slow down production to stop the prices from falling, but that's a really tough thing to argue that they should HAVE to make a product they're loosing money on. The psychotic up and down prices are the fault of middle-men trying to game the system... the manufacturer wouldn't have made ANY money off those chips. Now they could use the inflated prices to negotiate a higher cost to the OEMS, but the OEMS are smart and get prices far lower than the street price anyway.
The other fact people seem to miss is that many of these companies are one of only 1 or 2 manufacturers in a nation. It really is a matter of national security (not USA, but the individual nations) to keep those companies in business at all costs. This is capitalism working how it should... but of course the DRAM market isn't a "true" marketplace anyway. It takes Billions (yes with a B) to open a new fab and research new technology. The list in the lawsuit is literally every maker out there! I suppose they could let somebody go bankrupt... that's the "capitalist way" then prices would go up and stay up. but let's be reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
not at all, it's the engineers job to specify the materials, and the contractor's job to go back to the engineer if there are unforseen deviations... more than that, it's the inspector's job to keep the contractors honest! If what's been said is truely the case, the blame and liability both civil and criminal lies with the inspectors that signed off on the construction... There's three parties for a reason. Engineers can't be responsible for workmanship. Often they don't get to pic who builds the project or even order the materials. That's what management and Inspections are for. To not perform those steps, or worse to knowingly shortcut them can be a criminal offense even if nobody ever gets hurt. I've done enough Medical, mil-spec, and automotive work in a QA/supervisor capacity, to know if you can't prove your inspections are meaningful, and correct and you initial it, YOU can be personally liable for the company breaking contract and maybe even criminally liable. even if the parts are never ever bad! And that's just for "100 hammers" and car parts.. that this occurs in govt contracts is really quite upsetting.
but the epoxy would be far tougher than the cement it's bored into. In small quantities epoxy is more than strong enough.. in fact much stronger than cement. What you described would make perfect sense and save tons of time and money by not requiring the anchor points be painstakingly welded to the internal rebar of the concrete. Now I can see really quickly where the QA trouble is. Epoxy is NOT a magic bullet where you just super glue the stuff together and it's automaticaly invincible. But there's no need to continue to use 50 year old construction techiniques that require huge amounts of manpower and multiple rework just because some guys on the ground refuse to update their work practices.
One of the first things lego needs to do is allow Gumstix to make a lego casing for their little computers to control a NTX robot. There's already a great hacker community around the Gumstix platform just like the Lego platform.. It's a match made in OSS heaven. Short synopsis of Gumstix is a stripped out sharp Zaraus motherboard (like a slightly large stick of gum) with various attachments and running Linux.
Right now Lego's new creation will be more Open Source friendly than ever. Some of the people on the short list were the guys that created LeJOS... a Java-like programming language for RCX. Almost all of the programing tools for RCX were rewritten by hobbists and with Open source licenses. Please Lego, Stay away from the BEAST that is Microsoft. Sure MS could probably do better, but it would be a "slap in the face" to all the help from the community that's kept Lego around this long.
the other issue is almost the other extreme with mindstorms. They need better pieces in order to make more useful models. Once you get past a certian size.. about 12" in any direction they "techinic" models become fragile and unweildly to PLAY with. Then none of the motors and such can power the device.. at least not Lego supplied ones. I know NTX was built with some of these issues in mind.. mainly the "no studs" approach so models will be more "usable".
this is where I would differ from what's written and this is changed from the last draft. I think they even worded it wrong. I think the author confused works and services with allowing the software to run on hardware that's two different things.
You should be able to download the source from the distributor and load it into the machine. The orginal V2 draft only mentioned encryption keys required to run the code on hardware not connect to services. The second part is too far, I'd like to see the reasoning on it. Why should a manufacturer have to support your modifications on their network or allow their media to run without protection. The classic example is Tivo. Once TiVo has cable card support and HDMI they won't be legally allowed to give you that access to certian things because you may do something illegal with the machine, like copy DVDs or steal cable tv. On the other hand, they do need to give the necessary drivers and tools to properly use the hardware, that's a slightly different thing. The situation becomes sticky when regulations are involved. Things like Wifi where the engineers got "cheap" and relied on sofware drivers to maintain regulatory compliance is where the real problem is. With DMCA, they just do it anyway and sue anybody who tells. Problem is that it excludes huge numbers of people from the device when they should be using hardwired chips for the firmware.
exactly, HARDWARE can't be free, don't try to hide the cost in subsriptions or ads, it's not free, so exect people to pay for it... and your company to make a profit off it! It's only in the last 10 years companies have tried to "recover" the real cost of products by "selling" them below cost and expecting to make it up on some overpriced service. They even got DMCA passed to try to make that business model "legal" but it will never work. Of course with a deep pockets company like the telcos, cable or MS funding the projects, they'll drive the legit makers out of business unless they play too.
but not if they want to use GPL'd source code! That's what everybody seems to forget. GPL is only a license for redistributing or modifying software.. .not and EULA. If the hardware maker doesn't agree with the new GPL terms, stop using GPL in their products! That's just as easy as telling us we can choose to buy their product on their terms or not.
Remember, the GPL started because a printer manufacturer wouldn't provide a professor code to use last year's printer on this year's server... that's what it's all about!!!
isn't there already prior art for this? I thought there were 2 or 3 companies already doing this, many were in South america, so that may not be "prior" art. Also, wouldn't netzero qualify... they didn't give away a whole PC, but they had a model of ads-for-service 5 years ago.
It's about cherry-picking the best stuff for MS to sell and letting the "masses" handle the rest. Also, OSS doesn't mean cross platform. There's quite a bit of OSS .NET stuff out there, but of course it's tied only to Windows. PHBs still won't see the difference between the two so they'll continue to be locked in...probably more tightly because the "free" stuff will be built on more of the MS core.
Like I've said before, this is MS promising to eat all the other ISVs' lunch. MS just wants to play the "free" & "bundled" cards to look like competition while they cherry-pick all the profitable parts of the software industry for themselves. Also, I think MS has learned that OSS isn't all bad. Once real lawyers and professionals look at the OSS licenses without bias, it's really no threat to MS on the utilities and apps front... Unlike all the "freeware" and "shareware" stuff out there, with OSS you know where you stand, if they decide to implement something themselves people won't be comming out of the woodwork that MS "stole" their little hobby app.
When will the american public wake up and realize we have he ability to conquer just about anybody. sure a few pot-shots get thru, but that's the price of being on top. If we give up the freedoms that got us on top then we won't be there much longer.
IT just dawned on me, but most CEOs carry quite high personal liability insurance for civil cases that might arise if the company or investors sue them personally as long as it's not a criminal mater. He's probably already got insurance paying for part of this already, but he'll still need his own money to keep the insurance company from settling instead of fighting it out.
That's the worst idea ever. The president was NEVER supposed to be elected by popular vote. The Framers hated that idea to the core. It's a bit of a "states rights" thing but it's up to the states individually to determine how they will cast their votes. There's nothing in the Constitution itself that says people are suppose to vote for senators or presidents. To the Framers, that choice was supposed to be made by the officially elected state government. That way somebody smart, and already elected once was making the choice for who the next higher up officeholder would be. On the surface it seems anti-democratic, but in reality, many of our Federal govt problems are directly related to Federal elections and officers being separate and disconnected from the lower branches of government. Think of how fast all the issues with Bush would be resolved if he and the senate had to answer not just to the idea of "voters" but to specific branches of state government.. Where would we be if our state legislatures or governors could call our Federal Senators on the carpet and demand their votes the way the States demand it to be because they appointed them, not the voter sheep. We'd see a much higher quality of govt if the feds were responsible to somebody local not "everybody" in a nebulous get elected next term way.
but Intel is already under investigation for monopoly practices... if it wasn't for AMD's heroic attempt at competition, we wouldn't be as far as we are now. Intel is using their near monopoly on processors to force OEMS to purchase bundled chipsets, graphics chips and wireless cards. By it self, it's not wrong, but look how crappy the market is because for graphics because intel "encourages" OEMS to use their stuff instead of combining parts. Intel is nowhere near MS level of "evilness" but they still throw "discounts" to keep big customers in line from choosing too much AMD. Also, look how long it took Nvidia to get their "bus" license, and how quickly they come out and take ATIs away before the ink is even dry. Don't forget how intel got their graphics to start with, they "partnered" with Real3D to make add in cards.. .then hijacked the development team and "bought" the company out later.
But the very nature of Intel integrated "everything" is horribly anti competitive to the chipset and graphics makers. Intel is bundling chipset, wireless, and graphics for only slightly more than the chipset.. and tying that to the OEM's marketing (centrino?) and processor costs. ATI is just about pushed out of the low end "default" graphics market for intel. I was just at the store and almost all the AMD notebooks and a good portion of the desktops were sporting ATI chipsets and graphics. That's where AMD is going with this. Now they can gain revenue by the addition of chipsets and graphics, not to mention sweeten the OEM deal by making the costs and engineering lower. I'd have liked to see Nvidia, but their prices are considerably higher than ATI's. Also, the OEMS seem to prefer dealing with ATI... many have been using ATI for a long time...that's another in road for AMD sales. I just hope AMD/ATI cleans up house and starts putting real graphics out there. This silly stuff of 3/4 of the new PCs on the shelf, not for gamming or multimedia (worse, even with MCE installed!) is getting awful. We could really dream (or smoke good stuff) and think AMD/ATI could almost start their own brand.. and actually make money selling a Linux "platform" but I'd doubt that.
so the children were underweight?
This is how the new "anti terrorist" game works. Getting any info is legal for the police also, but contracting to PIs is quicker, then you get an "anamyous tip" where to supeona for the legit information in court. This reaks of "the rat" was about to turn the authorities out publically and we can't have that!
Remember how the feds wanted to "buy" information from "contractors" post 9/11. Chances are this is some kind of payback for his "good work". He was probably about to announce that he used his contacts to get information and that would be really bad for the FBI to show just how out of line they are. So they lock him up because he would make them look REALLY bad.
On the other hand, if you go the MS route, you continue MS dominance and feed the execs exactly what they want to hear. MS will continue to lock more and more suff down soon we'll have to pay for EVERYTHING!
The whole problem is that the W3C needs corp interest, patents, and money to stay in the game. If the W3C had to go it alone, all the individual corporate "members" would gut it like a fish in the courts. The current problem is that they've stopped writing good, simple, clean specs. With all the corporate interest the specs end up being one of two things: a) a "weapon" to punish who ever is on top of an industry a the moment by the threat of making it all "free" or b) attempt to skew the specs so only corporate developers could ever actually implement the whole thing. The result is that the specs are too big to be useful, so the big players all do their own thing anyway.. just how companies like Adobe, MS, IBM, etc would like it. I'm sure it's not deliberate on the part of individual contributing developers, but when the companies don't actively back up the results of the work with shipping products (like IE which hasn't been improved for 5 years!!!) everybody "knows" where the priorities like and nothing gets DONE.
The orginal poster may need to use some windows only apps, and might be invested in a custom environment they can't change just yet. ReactOS would allow you to put whole worstations on it until you were ready to make the jump to *nix. That's the point of the thing, to have a MS compatible OSS stack. It's not perfectly utopian Free Software, but it is pragmatic. Right now MS biggest competitor for Vista isn't Linux or OSx it's their own Windows 2000 for business or windows 98 for home users. MS needs to talk all the retired moms & dads out there into upgrading whole computers for minimal benifit. IF ReactOS adds the ability to not upgrade at ALL but still keep security then MS could be in more trouble!
But what kind of hypritical Slashdotter would but a M$ only player? If your trying to get a way from Microsoft enough to use Linux I don't think your going to jump back into bed with the DRM'd, Trecherous computing, Privacy stealing, evil-capitalist beast again.
Why do I think it's not a real case? Because at the same time this was supposedly going on, Micron also accused Hynix 9the most famous, but several other too) of accepting government (Korean) bailouts because they nearly went bankrupt from the free fall of the dropping prices. Micron was arguing in the past that during the same period Hynix was illegally LOWERING the price of chips. That case is already been decided in court.
You can't have it both ways. More of what happened is the big OEM ram USERS pushed for lower and lower prices tying up inventories. The companies may have agreed to slow down production to stop the prices from falling, but that's a really tough thing to argue that they should HAVE to make a product they're loosing money on. The psychotic up and down prices are the fault of middle-men trying to game the system... the manufacturer wouldn't have made ANY money off those chips. Now they could use the inflated prices to negotiate a higher cost to the OEMS, but the OEMS are smart and get prices far lower than the street price anyway.
The other fact people seem to miss is that many of these companies are one of only 1 or 2 manufacturers in a nation. It really is a matter of national security (not USA, but the individual nations) to keep those companies in business at all costs. This is capitalism working how it should... but of course the DRAM market isn't a "true" marketplace anyway. It takes Billions (yes with a B) to open a new fab and research new technology. The list in the lawsuit is literally every maker out there! I suppose they could let somebody go bankrupt... that's the "capitalist way" then prices would go up and stay up. but let's be reasonable.