Land lines arguably still hold market power for local service. Combining that with wireless, etc. and it is possible that we will see a return of Ma Bell....
Which raises an interesting question: Are there some services where a government-regulated monopoly is the best choice?
I mean, if the government broke up AT&T to let the market decide, and the market is re-consolidating, isn't that an argument against a pure laissez faire domestic policy? (And that's not even taking into account the government involvement required to avoid slamming.)
Absolutely not. You can't have company names that sound so familiar in the same area that the customer is unable to determine if this is the same company they have done business with before.
Honestly, if Mike Rowe called you and said "Hello, this is Mike calling from MikeRoweSoft and I would like to offer you web development services for your Microsoft Windows 2000 platform." -- would *you* be able to tell the difference?
That would be a valid point if Mike Rowe utilized telemarketing to advertise his services. Perhaps Microsoft should have waited until he did so to enforce their trademark claim. The fact is that Microsoft is attempting to enforce a trademark claim when their trademark is not being violated.
You do have a very good point that should serve as a warning to any e-commerce company: be careful how you name your company if you plan to market it in meat-space.
At any rate, he is clearly infringing on the Microsoft trademark. Imagine if someone could call themselves "Gee Em" and start selling cars, or if a company adopted the name "Eye Bee Em" and started selling computers and consulting services.
I fail to see how anyone could connotate "geeem.com" with "gm.com" and "eyebeeem.com" with "ibm.com" just as much as I doubt one would confuse "mikerowesoft.com" with "microsoft.com". I suppose it might be possible for non-native English speakers using Babelfish for translation, but I doubt that US and Canadian trademark law is enforceable for every concievable worldwide possibility.
But I own a lot of LPs, and would like to digitize them while record needles still exist. It would be simple to just download the album contents, but I didn't *buy* a digital version. If I could be sure that the version I'm downloading was ripped from an LP, then I think that would be within the realm of fair use... it's more like lending my records to a friend who has the equipment to rip them. But downloading a copy ripped off of a CD to replace a vinyl LP would, I think, stretch things too far... the medium has a higher price, and higher quality, and I didn't pay for it.
Your reasoning, IMHO, seems to be the most logical opinion that I have read on this divisive issue. It makes sense to me that it's justifiable for the copyright owners to expect recompense when the technology changes but not when the format changes. When format changes, I don't see much re-tooling required by the recording industry whereas when the technology itself changes, I could see some fundamental changes impacting their bottom line. (Someone on the inside of the recording industry, feel free to clarify.)
Applying your reasoning to copyright law would be an interesting and fruitful task; differentiating technology from format would be a useful step in the right direction to compromise in copyright law. Thanks for sharing your insight.
Also ever thought of this one? It may not be damaging CD sales, but what incentive does kazaa give the ARIA etc to provide a download service? Itunes was successful, but who knows how much revenue it is loosing to kazaa et al?
That's an interesting point. It also raises yet another issue regarding p2p music: Do you believe that you should be able to download (without paying) a song that is on a vinyl album that you own? In other words, how many times do you feel you should have to pay for a copyrighted piece of work?
This was a time of severe public discontent with the arrogance of the "robber barons"; the public was clamoring for legislation like the antitrust act.
It is fascinating to watch history repeat itself in different ways. Today, a majority of us on/. are one faction of public discontent with what I suppose should be called "idea barons". At the same time, we're confronting the disconnect between the immediacy of communications afforded by the Internet and the communications processes to which our elected representatives have become accustomed.
It isn't very surprising that this anti-trust investigation was dropped; after all, more legitimate options have come to market. What needs to be challenged further is the DRM applied by these "new legitimate options" which relates more to copyright law than anti-trust law. How can we retain the rights of First Sale and Fair Use in a digital medium? My first broad brush stroke at an answer has been this: if it's non-commercial (meaning, I didn't make any money from the digital transaction) use, it should be legal. But, as I said, that's pretty broad and there are probably exceptions that should be accounted for. I just haven't found them yet.
They arn't DRMing things that you should be able to copy and do what you want with. They are DRMing things that are ment for people to buy or have limited use of.
Wow, either you're not from the USA or we haven't read the same
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of US law which specifically talks about fair use. Or maybe you're just trolling in which case...congratulations, good one.
Now there for sure will be examples to counter this, but thats not the rule. With all things comes some bad apples.
This is probably the only truly interesting and truthful thing in your post. There are indeed bad apples. They fail test #1 of Section 107 because they attempt to sell their copyright infringing works.
People swapping and recording copyrighted works for nonprofit reasons are not infinging upon the copyrighted works unless and until the owners of the copyrights can prove that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" damages them.
--Regarding my name, always remember, "i before e except after c". That humorous jab aside, I appreciate your informative response.
I found this interesting; could you elaborate on the reasoning behind it:
One thing I think is important for PMs to recognize is that they're fallible. The technical team is all over this stuff on a daily basis. They're always going to have a deeper understanding of what's going on. On the other hand, you can't get too carried away with this, or they're not going to have time to get any work done.
I'm curious about why your PM ranks don't encompass the people that have been "in the trenches" so to speak.
Above all, thanks for a well-articulated response to my post.
The thing is, I need to be able to ask them stupid questions, ask the client stupid questions, and then synthesize it into something remotely intelligent. I need to keep both parties happy, balance client needs against what's reasonable to ask of my team and take responsibility if it all goes to hell. I need to think of as many things that could go wrong as possible and make sure we have the resources to deal with them if it happens.
Eddy, I think you present the case of the project manager very honestly and I appreciate that. I also respect your position in that you need to keep both sides happy. But I still have a question about your support of "stupid questions". If you're asking either side "stupid questions", you're bound to lose something in the translation, no? It is this abstraction of the role of the project manager that causes me the most heartache.
(And it sounds like your PMs should be fired. Feel like moving into managment?;) ).
To answer your first assertion, I don't favor putting anyone out of work. To answer your question, I already am.:)
His point was that the 2 GHz PC you have on your desk right now doesn't contain any Trusted Computing hardware. For that matter neither does any 3 GHz PC you could buy tomorrow or any of old Pentium I-IVs you can get at Goodwill. So why buy a new 486 spec machine?
- When did I state that one should purchase a 486 over a newer computer? I said that given the possible options, I would choose the 486 over the faster alternative if the faster alternative implied Digital Restrictions Managemant.
For that matter neither does any 3 GHz PC you could buy tomorrow or any of old Pentium I-IVs you can get at Goodwill. So why buy a new 486 spec machine?
- Nice straw-man. I wonder who posed the problem that you solve?
If you can't decipher such a simple argument maybe you are as dumb as you sound.
Occam's Razor: I'm dumb or you're wrong. Isn't it interesting to walk on a razor's edge?
--K.
The company us insanely large? Your project manager dont evn understand the basic technologies involved in their projects?
- Yes, that's what I stated.
But the company is large and those people make 4 times what you make?
- Well, no...I never stated that project managers made 4X what I do. In point of fact, our pay grades are similar. And, even if they did make more money than me...I don't care. It's irrelevant to the discussion of who contributes more to the business.
Excuse me, but it seems that you dont understand the importance of the technologies involved...none, zero, nada.
- Enlighten me, oh wizened one, for you obviously have knowledge which I have yet to obtain. Otherwise, bugger off.
This one is great:
What it is just a MEAN for them is EVERYTHING for you. That should give you a good picture of where are you and where are them.
- An entirely correct statement. They sure do get pissed off when I don't allow their project to proceed because of a technical hitch. But we still work together to advance the project and get the job done. You're obviously a person that puts control above teamwork. Good luck with that leadership style, Adolf. (Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law.):)
Low-skill jobs like coding are moving offshore and what's left in their place are more advanced project management jobs.
Let the perl regex marathon begin!:)
Seriously, I work for an insanely large international telecommunications company and our project managers don't even understand the basic technologies involved in the projects they're managing. I don't envy their job, but I have a hard time believing that their (basically administrative) skills are any more important than the skills of those of us who actually make the stuff work. If PM skills supercede mine, I wonder why I'm always on (endless) conference calls explaining things to them.
*shrug* Their cluelessness is pretty good job security so I don't complain until they hit utter braindeadlessness.
This is a great submission. I too was a weather geek before (or rather while becoming) a computer geek.
Here's another bit of trivia related to atmospheric physics that can come in handy: Buys Ballots Law.
Basically, in the northern hemisphere, if the wind is at your back low pressure is on your left (on your right for those of you down south). When you combine that bit of trivia with the knowledge that most bad weather is associated with low pressure, it comes in handy when trying to plan a golf game during a FROPA (frontal passage).
In addition, musicians most likely wouldn't approve of this because it makes it much too easy to "sample" (read: rip off) their work.
Time will tell, of course, but I believe your statement encompasses two fundamental fallacies about how we view music:
You assume that musicians will retain enough control to approve/disapprove the use of their work.
You presume to know how free music will be used by the public.
You might be right, but I hope not. I envision a future where a lot more bands gain recognition via P2P and earn money by touring. I'd like to think that the future will remain an environment where I own what I buy.
There are many ways to envision the future. Some attempt to shape the future according to profits and dividends and others look at the bigger picture of the greater good to society. When it comes to the Internet, I can sympathize with the former, but generally tend to believe in the latter.
Beware of the RMS borg! it sucks up all paying technology jobs and replaces them with a wasteland of open source written by hobbyist college students for free.
I realize that this might be considered feeding a troll, but I have never understood this line of thinking. If you know how to write good code, what are you afraid of? Your talent (if you do indeed possess it) will still be marketable even if your source code is readily available for the simple reason that most people don't know or care about source code.
I believe that proprietary software is built upon the same house of cards that is imploding upon the recording industry today. It simply can't withstand the microscrope of public scrutiny. People will pay for ephemeral things out of an ethical desire to reward the creators and distributors. But these same people are sick to death of being exploited by the same parties who desire their money.
Call RMS what you will...but the GPL exists because he took a stand. And we wouldn't even have this thread if he hadn't taken that stand.
There is no Trademark infringement in my eyes. Just another greed company with it hands in every's one public pocket tring to justify its existance.
While I agree that the damages being sought in this case seem to be excessive, OCLC is required to defend their trademark in order to keep it. Whether that's a good enough excuse for this action is probably a different debate. (I wonder if trademarks are infinite as long as they are defended?)
I've actually been to OCLC and they stay pretty busy there. In addition to databasing all the books of the libraries that license from them, they also use that database to facilitate book-swaps between member libraries. Which means, if your local library doesn't have a book you want and pays OCLC licensing fees, they can borrow that book from any other library that also pays OCLC. (At least I think that's how it works.) Their facility in Dublin is one of the coolest buildings I've ever seen. They're not totally evil.
Maybe they should merge wth SCO.
Ouch...they don't quite deserve that do they? Come on, I've got friends that work there!;) And keep in mind that librarians and their associated organizations happen to stand right alongside the slashdot crowd when it comes to a lot of the evil gov't laws like DMCA and Patriot Act.
I've got a feeling that in this case, they'll settle on a license and be done with it but I'll be sure to ask my friends to keep me posted.
Sorry, no way. People who amass collections of in excess of 1,000 mp3s (of songs they do not posses on CD) are by no stretch of the imagination "victims".
Indeed. Hopefully, most of them will avoid financial ruin and attempt the amnesty route.
I hope that the laws (DMCA and CTEA to name just a couple) which have caused this entire fiasco are fixed and the proper balance between public and private interests is found. Artists do deserve to get paid for their work...for limited times. Then it belongs to the public because we've just been letting them make some cash on it for a while. When they assert their "intellectual property" rights too far against the interests of the public, they forfeit their right to a limited monopoly on their works. Of course they don't like that and I guess it's easier for them wave a big club than it is for them to admit that they went too far with their "intellectual property" lobbying efforts. I don't look for this to have much of an effect on P2P (as has been mentioned already...people will just offshore the files). This is what is happening now. The only thing I can think of for the entertarinment industry to save itself is to admit it was wrong and lobby for more sane "intellectual property" laws. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
And on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to look into the connection between file-swapping services and pornography, called by its chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah.
Self-defeating business model? $40 billion in the bank can't be wrong.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to disrespect the business acumen of Microsoft in the past. Their business actions, though deemed monopolistic abuse by the United States, have been very profitable. Thus, the bankroll you mention.
What is interesting to me is how the company has reacted to alternative operating systems that don't cost anything. It took them a few years to even recognize the contender and contemplate the fact that they can't continue to overcharge their customer-base. It's even more interesting how the company continues to attempt to restrict and control the actions of their customers...almost as if they're drawing a line in the sand saying "cross this line and lose our patronship".:)
They do have the cash to continue to experiment with just how much they can get away with. But I imagine their shareholders might start to get interested if that cash reserve begins to dwindle without any dividends being paid.
So... exit Microsoft Corp, stage left; enter Linux Corp, stage right? Have I got the picture?
Well, I think you might have gotten the picture at the expense of missing the boat.:)
But Linux isn't a corporation; and Linus would happily agree that Linux isn't a person. It has, in its enemies' words, "no centre of gravity", no central bastion to attack. It has no war-chest, no lawyers, no production facilities. If it is distributed from France or Germany, it isn't because of some strategic global plan, it's just where the distributors happened to live.
Right. This is why I think you got the picture. The boat that I believe you missed is that the lack of the centralization that you emphasize is precisely the attraction of the different distributions. The variety offers choice and the opportunity for customized solutions. The freedom to view and modify the source code is simply a value-added benefit for people skilled enough to recognize that value.
In short, while you can happily replace MS-Windows with Linux, there is nothing to replace Microsoft itself.
While I'd love to see Microsoft get onboard the FOSS development model, their self-defeating business model means absolutely nothing to me. I don't need to replace Microsoft. Irrelevant companies have an historical tendency of obviating themselves. If you need a first symptom, which company very publicly bought SCO's license?
Collecting information on people is an agressive act.
If you had said "The online collection of personal information without permission is an aggressive act", I would agree. But as it stands, your statement is overly broad IMHO. You then draw the conclusion that:
You collect detailed information about things you wish to control.
Again, if your qualifier had been more precise, this conclusion would carry more weight.
Those are just my suggestions for a better way to phrase your arguments. I agree with the overall spirit of your post.
Slashdot Mirror
Which raises an interesting question: Are there some services where a government-regulated monopoly is the best choice? I mean, if the government broke up AT&T to let the market decide, and the market is re-consolidating, isn't that an argument against a pure laissez faire domestic policy?
(And that's not even taking into account the government involvement required to avoid slamming.)
Thoughts? Trolls? Cogent speculation?
--K.
You forgot one:
(15) I'm still waiting for the recording industry to prove that file sharing is harming their business.
As soon as they prove harm to their bottom line, I'll take a much more dismal view of song-swapping.
--K.
That would be a valid point if Mike Rowe utilized telemarketing to advertise his services. Perhaps Microsoft should have waited until he did so to enforce their trademark claim. The fact is that Microsoft is attempting to enforce a trademark claim when their trademark is not being violated.
You do have a very good point that should serve as a warning to any e-commerce company: be careful how you name your company if you plan to market it in meat-space.
--K.
I fail to see how anyone could connotate "geeem.com" with "gm.com" and "eyebeeem.com" with "ibm.com" just as much as I doubt one would confuse "mikerowesoft.com" with "microsoft.com". I suppose it might be possible for non-native English speakers using Babelfish for translation, but I doubt that US and Canadian trademark law is enforceable for every concievable worldwide possibility.
--K.
Y'all ever hear about what happens when you melt snow? Just stay away from the yellow stuff...
--K.
P.S. Just to prove I was kidding...I was pulling for Denver today. Congrats Colts fans.
But I own a lot of LPs, and would like to digitize them while record needles still exist. It would be simple to just download the album contents, but I didn't *buy* a digital version. If I could be sure that the version I'm downloading was ripped from an LP, then I think that would be within the realm of fair use... it's more like lending my records to a friend who has the equipment to rip them. But downloading a copy ripped off of a CD to replace a vinyl LP would, I think, stretch things too far... the medium has a higher price, and higher quality, and I didn't pay for it.
Your reasoning, IMHO, seems to be the most logical opinion that I have read on this divisive issue. It makes sense to me that it's justifiable for the copyright owners to expect recompense when the technology changes but not when the format changes. When format changes, I don't see much re-tooling required by the recording industry whereas when the technology itself changes, I could see some fundamental changes impacting their bottom line. (Someone on the inside of the recording industry, feel free to clarify.)
Applying your reasoning to copyright law would be an interesting and fruitful task; differentiating technology from format would be a useful step in the right direction to compromise in copyright law. Thanks for sharing your insight.
--K.
That's an interesting point. It also raises yet another issue regarding p2p music: Do you believe that you should be able to download (without paying) a song that is on a vinyl album that you own? In other words, how many times do you feel you should have to pay for a copyrighted piece of work?
--K.
It is fascinating to watch history repeat itself in different ways. Today, a majority of us on
It isn't very surprising that this anti-trust investigation was dropped; after all, more legitimate options have come to market. What needs to be challenged further is the DRM applied by these "new legitimate options" which relates more to copyright law than anti-trust law. How can we retain the rights of First Sale and Fair Use in a digital medium? My first broad brush stroke at an answer has been this: if it's non-commercial (meaning, I didn't make any money from the digital transaction) use, it should be legal. But, as I said, that's pretty broad and there are probably exceptions that should be accounted for. I just haven't found them yet.
--K.
Wow, either you're not from the USA or we haven't read the same Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of US law which specifically talks about fair use. Or maybe you're just trolling in which case...congratulations, good one.
This is probably the only truly interesting and truthful thing in your post. There are indeed bad apples. They fail test #1 of Section 107 because they attempt to sell their copyright infringing works.
People swapping and recording copyrighted works for nonprofit reasons are not infinging upon the copyrighted works unless and until the owners of the copyrights can prove that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" damages them.
Cheers,
--K.
--Regarding my name, always remember, "i before e except after c". That humorous jab aside, I appreciate your informative response.
I found this interesting; could you elaborate on the reasoning behind it:
I'm curious about why your PM ranks don't encompass the people that have been "in the trenches" so to speak.
Above all, thanks for a well-articulated response to my post.
--K.
Eddy, I think you present the case of the project manager very honestly and I appreciate that. I also respect your position in that you need to keep both sides happy. But I still have a question about your support of "stupid questions". If you're asking either side "stupid questions", you're bound to lose something in the translation, no? It is this abstraction of the role of the project manager that causes me the most heartache.
To answer your first assertion, I don't favor putting anyone out of work. To answer your question, I already am.
--K.
- When did I state that one should purchase a 486 over a newer computer? I said that given the possible options, I would choose the 486 over the faster alternative if the faster alternative implied Digital Restrictions Managemant.
- Nice straw-man. I wonder who posed the problem that you solve?
Occam's Razor: I'm dumb or you're wrong. Isn't it interesting to walk on a razor's edge?
--K.
This might come as a shock to you, but ignorance is not bliss. Use Google. Read up on "Trusted Computing."
Trusted Computing Homepage.
Trusted Computing Criticism
Decide for yourself, but I'm able to verbally articulate myself so I don't think I'm dumb but I do think you're ignorant.
--K.
- Yes, that's what I stated.
- Well, no...I never stated that project managers made 4X what I do. In point of fact, our pay grades are similar. And, even if they did make more money than me...I don't care. It's irrelevant to the discussion of who contributes more to the business.
- Enlighten me, oh wizened one, for you obviously have knowledge which I have yet to obtain. Otherwise, bugger off.
This one is great:
- An entirely correct statement. They sure do get pissed off when I don't allow their project to proceed because of a technical hitch. But we still work together to advance the project and get the job done. You're obviously a person that puts control above teamwork. Good luck with that leadership style, Adolf. (Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law.)
--K.
I'll take an open-source, standards-compliant 486 computer over a 2Ghz Trusted Computing appliance any day.
--K.
Let the perl regex marathon begin!
Seriously, I work for an insanely large international telecommunications company and our project managers don't even understand the basic technologies involved in the projects they're managing. I don't envy their job, but I have a hard time believing that their (basically administrative) skills are any more important than the skills of those of us who actually make the stuff work. If PM skills supercede mine, I wonder why I'm always on (endless) conference calls explaining things to them.
*shrug* Their cluelessness is pretty good job security so I don't complain until they hit utter braindeadlessness.
--K.
This is a great submission. I too was a weather geek before (or rather while becoming) a computer geek.
Here's another bit of trivia related to atmospheric physics that can come in handy: Buys Ballots Law.
Basically, in the northern hemisphere, if the wind is at your back low pressure is on your left (on your right for those of you down south). When you combine that bit of trivia with the knowledge that most bad weather is associated with low pressure, it comes in handy when trying to plan a golf game during a FROPA (frontal passage).
--K.
Time will tell, of course, but I believe your statement encompasses two fundamental fallacies about how we view music:
You might be right, but I hope not. I envision a future where a lot more bands gain recognition via P2P and earn money by touring. I'd like to think that the future will remain an environment where I own what I buy.
There are many ways to envision the future. Some attempt to shape the future according to profits and dividends and others look at the bigger picture of the greater good to society. When it comes to the Internet, I can sympathize with the former, but generally tend to believe in the latter.
--K.
I realize that this might be considered feeding a troll, but I have never understood this line of thinking. If you know how to write good code, what are you afraid of? Your talent (if you do indeed possess it) will still be marketable even if your source code is readily available for the simple reason that most people don't know or care about source code.
I believe that proprietary software is built upon the same house of cards that is imploding upon the recording industry today. It simply can't withstand the microscrope of public scrutiny. People will pay for ephemeral things out of an ethical desire to reward the creators and distributors. But these same people are sick to death of being exploited by the same parties who desire their money.
Call RMS what you will...but the GPL exists because he took a stand. And we wouldn't even have this thread if he hadn't taken that stand.
--K.
While I agree that the damages being sought in this case seem to be excessive, OCLC is required to defend their trademark in order to keep it. Whether that's a good enough excuse for this action is probably a different debate. (I wonder if trademarks are infinite as long as they are defended?)
I've actually been to OCLC and they stay pretty busy there. In addition to databasing all the books of the libraries that license from them, they also use that database to facilitate book-swaps between member libraries. Which means, if your local library doesn't have a book you want and pays OCLC licensing fees, they can borrow that book from any other library that also pays OCLC. (At least I think that's how it works.) Their facility in Dublin is one of the coolest buildings I've ever seen. They're not totally evil.
Ouch...they don't quite deserve that do they? Come on, I've got friends that work there!
I've got a feeling that in this case, they'll settle on a license and be done with it but I'll be sure to ask my friends to keep me posted.
--K.
Indeed. Hopefully, most of them will avoid financial ruin and attempt the amnesty route.
I hope that the laws (DMCA and CTEA to name just a couple) which have caused this entire fiasco are fixed and the proper balance between public and private interests is found. Artists do deserve to get paid for their work...for limited times. Then it belongs to the public because we've just been letting them make some cash on it for a while. When they assert their "intellectual property" rights too far against the interests of the public, they forfeit their right to a limited monopoly on their works. Of course they don't like that and I guess it's easier for them wave a big club than it is for them to admit that they went too far with their "intellectual property" lobbying efforts. I don't look for this to have much of an effect on P2P (as has been mentioned already...people will just offshore the files). This is what is happening now. The only thing I can think of for the entertarinment industry to save itself is to admit it was wrong and lobby for more sane "intellectual property" laws. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
--K.
This Orrin Hatch?
Something sure smells rotten in Washington DC.
--K.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to disrespect the business acumen of Microsoft in the past. Their business actions, though deemed monopolistic abuse by the United States, have been very profitable. Thus, the bankroll you mention.
What is interesting to me is how the company has reacted to alternative operating systems that don't cost anything. It took them a few years to even recognize the contender and contemplate the fact that they can't continue to overcharge their customer-base. It's even more interesting how the company continues to attempt to restrict and control the actions of their customers...almost as if they're drawing a line in the sand saying "cross this line and lose our patronship".
They do have the cash to continue to experiment with just how much they can get away with. But I imagine their shareholders might start to get interested if that cash reserve begins to dwindle without any dividends being paid.
--K.
Well, I think you might have gotten the picture at the expense of missing the boat.
Right. This is why I think you got the picture. The boat that I believe you missed is that the lack of the centralization that you emphasize is precisely the attraction of the different distributions. The variety offers choice and the opportunity for customized solutions. The freedom to view and modify the source code is simply a value-added benefit for people skilled enough to recognize that value.
While I'd love to see Microsoft get onboard the FOSS development model, their self-defeating business model means absolutely nothing to me. I don't need to replace Microsoft. Irrelevant companies have an historical tendency of obviating themselves. If you need a first symptom, which company very publicly bought SCO's license?
--K.
If you had said "The online collection of personal information without permission is an aggressive act", I would agree. But as it stands, your statement is overly broad IMHO. You then draw the conclusion that:
Again, if your qualifier had been more precise, this conclusion would carry more weight.
Those are just my suggestions for a better way to phrase your arguments. I agree with the overall spirit of your post.
--K.