This is the real reason the government doesn't want strong public encyption. It threatens their ability to tax. If all transactions are encrypted and privacy exists (i.e., - companies don't distribute 'marketing data'), then there is no way for them to prosecute or collect.
What we need is a government that only protects individual rights. No more and certainly no less. Health care, education, roads, et al. are not rights. Life, liberty, property, and privacy are rights and they are not-so-slowly being cut away.
This is especially important because we live in a service economy. That's where the money is. (Look at Red Hat.) If the government continues its monopoly on services, there will come a day when the people say no more and then the government will hand off that monopoly to some corporation (like Microsoft, for education!) and then we'll really be screwed.
This is civilization. The progress to a private society. It used to be that the government controlled everything. Then century after century they controlled less and less. Some societies survived the transistions well (Ancient Greece). Others didn't (the Pharohs). And in some places people became slaves of monopolies granted by the government (Rome/Feudal Society).
The US survived the industrial revolution because of the ideas of Aristotle and Locke. It almost didn't (The War Between the States).
We are faced with a new revolution. Call it what you will, define it as you like, but be reasonable. Some call it the 'Digital Revolution', some call it the 'Internet Revolution' and I'm sure there's a million other names that focus on different long-term changes that we barely notice because our lives are so short (and that's changing too).
The fact remains that we are thinking animals. We survive by our good ideas and die by our bad ones. Human evolution is intellectual. Since we became human we have changed our environment to fit our needs, but we often neglect to change our ideas to fit the environment we create.
"My privilege to write these sanguinary sentences in soft security was bought for me by rivers of blood poured upon many fields, in many lands, but I possess not one single little paltry right or privilege that come to me as a result of persuasion, agitation for reform, or any kindred method of procedure." -- Mark Twain
I've got a Toshiba Portege 3010. It has a port expander that allows me to plug in a second monitor. There's a button labeled 'Fn' that pressed with 'F5' switches the display to either monitor or both.
I was wondering if there is a way to use this to create a dual-headed display?
What kind of Toshiba? What button? I've got a Portege 3010 and I used a config file from the Linux laptop site. It seems to work just fine, but if there's some more fine tuning I could do, I would like to.
I too thought of Dune. Of course, a gratuitous mention of The Matrix also seems to be in order. The Matrix.
The idea of machines putting people out of work goes back to, at least, Marx. It's always been shown not to be the case. (Consider our current level of technology, our population, and our material wealth compared to that of the past.)
I think we will soon face the challenge that other civilizations have faced. Are we sufficiently aware of our own devices (mechanical, intellectual, political, et al.) to control our destiny?
No, I'm not going to ask if there will be Linux support.
This robot is a networked device which is a feature I don't recall the AIBO having. Put this together with X10 devices and you could dominate the world by voice! (Or at least the part you live in.)
I imagine the penguinish color theme will be my choice if there is . . . enough money in my bank account! (See? I didn't ask about Linux support:)
I'm suprised I haven't seen anyone mention the one-handed keyboard + pointer combo. IIRC the demo that Jobs saw at Xerox PARC had a chord keyboard and some sort of mouse. I can't buy hardware right now, but for my next desktop I'm going use a Dvorak one-handed with a trackball (maybe). Then again, I may never buy a desktop if I can find a monocular that does at least 800x600:)
This was a rather nasty thing to do. As Mr. Perens has already stated, he did not intend for the email to be posted to Slashdot. Couldn't somebody have, as a courtesy, checked with him before this went up? Even if only to make sure that he was really the one that sent the message?
There were 11 follow-ups on the Debian mailing list last I checked and then I reload Slashdot to find nearly 100 comments already posted to this article. I think it took a total of 30 minutes for all of this.
Will Slashdot be changing from green to yellow? This kind of sensationalism within the community only hurts us. I first started reading Slashdot early this year and in that short time I've been here the tone of the articles has gone from 'Stuff that matters.' to that of the mock page 'Stuff that splatters'. Not entirely, of course, but the average is moving that way.
Maybe there should be some sort of flag system for articles. As an over-simplified example, good vs. bad news. New advances, project completions, et al. are good. Censorship, legal action, things that Microsoft does are bad. Bad news seems to have five times the impact as good news, judging from what I recall of comment counts. If there aren't five times or more 'good news' articles, Slashdot becomes the hive of raving lunatics that other news wires think it is.
Perhaps a survey of articles should be done. Maybe weigh the value of an article by the number of comments and their moderation points. It would probably be best to exclude funny moderations. Then classify the articles according to a flag system and see what is most beneficial to us. Hell, that could probably be the start of a doctoral thesis in something.
I don't mean to say that 'bad news' is unimportant or should be ignored. But since bad trends are more important than bad events, perhaps the reporting should reflect that. Somethings are urgent ('Congress voting on suprise bill tomorrow' et al.); but most bad news isn't really new, it's the same-old-**** in a new form which indicates that there is a more fundamental problem that hasn't been addressed.
When the story about the US Gov't starting an anti-hacking 'education' campaign (a la D.A.R.E.) was posted, someone did refer to Linux as a gateway operating system.
Which is rather strange because Gateway only ships MS Windows boxes, last I checked?
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
I suspect the language is there in the Corel EULA because minors cannot (usually?) be bound by contract. Of course, since buying just about anything is agreeing to a license (copyright, patent, conditions of sale, etc.) I have to imagine that minors cannot legally live! Darn interesting topic, I just wish I had more to say.
Something that seem to be forgotten in all of this is that creating an inherently non-private system leaves you vulnerable by private citizens. We've already seen cases where snooping neighbors with video cameras bring charges of 'sodomy' against couples engaging in oral sex in their own bedroom. Wireless (non-cellular) phone conversations can be intercepted with a police scanner. Start implementing programs like this and FANGS (remote deactivation of automobiles) and soon high-tech hoodlums will rule the cities. And usually those hoodlums are kids who act with great impugnity.
--- Gratuitous ECHELON-Baiting Mode = 1 --- Since it's the FBI that's asking this, I'll have to guess that they just heard about all the neat toys the NSA has and wanted to get some of their own. --- Gratuitous ECHELON-Baiting Mode = 0 ---
This kind of news breaks more frequently every day. Something is seriously wrong with our government, and I don't mean taxes, the interstate commerce clause, anti-trust laws, welfare, the socialization of healthcare, state dictators and their minions, UN involvement, etc. I think there are some aspects of political theory that our forefathers never worked out. See for example my recent post about the failures of the patent system.
Also consider the recent actions - or the mere existence of - the House Republican Conference. This group is not a part of the government, though it's members are in situ. It's membership is those elected representative who are affiliated with a particular political party (which genus the founders did not want). In violation of the rules for naming of Internet domains the HRC acquired the Internet domain HRC.GOV (it should have been HRC.ORG[Check it out and laugh]). Perhaps it can be argued that this is criminal fraud, but who are the victims? How have they been injured? Is there intent to deceive and if so regarding what? And who is liable, the grantor of the domain or the grantee? It is clear that this action is deceitful, and it threatens liberty because it grant the appearance of governmental power to the grantee.
Grant me a couple of premises for a moment. A good government's only purpose is to protect individual rights. Suppose also that it is clear what those rights are and what is a violation of them. Well you've still got a 200 year old problem: How do you set up a government that does just that and continues to do just that? The biggest loophole in the US Constitution is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Now look at the constitution of the (ungh!) Confederate States of America; they added a little bit to that clause that limited the powers it granted. As I understand it, the southern states viewed the actions of the northern states as an economic attack on two fronts: (1) through the excessive regulation of commerce particular to the south, and (2) through the immediate abolishment of the principal means of production in the south (slavery). Now, I'm not a Confederate apologist, but I've read their constitution. They include the aforementioned change to the ICC, and they even seemed intent on 'phasing out' slavery in favor of agricultural machinery. Why do I mention this if I'm not an apologist? Because it may be an example of the kind of problem I'm talking about.
There are parts of our government that may be 'optional', like the particular implementation of electoral representation, or of regulatory powers, or of law enforcement. The goal should always be the protection of individual rights, but the different paths to that goal sometimes have unforeseen forks that lead straight to tyranny or chaos. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." (IIRC)
I've wandered off-topic a bit. Just a brief addendum now. Yes, I know Slashdot is read around the world; I refer to the US as the only existing country for convenience, not of ignorance or arrogance. I live in the a former confederate state, and I don't like what that means to most people around here; I'm granting the statesmen of the CSA the benefit of the doubt, their progeny don't inherit it. I think that and the late hour of this post are all the asbestos I need, so...
This is just a question, not a suggestion. Microsoft surely doesn't handle the routing of the Internet. I've heard of something called the UDP - USENET Death Penalty - whereby some ISP's are blocked from USENET.
Could something similar be done to prevent MS from usurping the net? Something like a refusal-to-route if certain protocols aren't followed or perhaps if bandwidth is consumed by all those propritary barnacles on MS-software produced documents?
This question should be considered in at least three ways: 1. Is it possible in code? 2. Could it be implemented? 3. Would such a thing be desireable?
Does anyone know how far and deep Real's drive scans went? Do they still do it? What do they collect? Is my GNU/Linux box now vulnerable?
Where and for what do I sue?
I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take closed source software anymore!
Re: Can you sue the patent office?
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
As I understand it - the US government claims that you can only sue it if it decides to let itself be sued. (And yes, this is a Cooper pair of bogons.)
I wasn't thinking of a class-action suit against the USPTO however. I was thinking that any smaller corporations or individuals faced with such spurious IP suits should cooperate in the invalidation of said claims of IP. This will minimize their costs and perhaps even entice the larger corporations to join in.
Bad patent office good for business
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
From my notebook of random thoughts: (Yes, really. These are the unedited musings of me last night.)
Or perhaps consider the individual who has been granted a patent for a software engineering method in spite the existence of prior art. Most reports indicate that those being sued for patent infringement are likely to settle rather than litigate to have the patent invalidated because the accounting cost of a settlement is less. Regardless of the outcome, an injustice has been done because resources have been wasted. If litigation is pursued, some individuals will have assumed a financial burden that benefits their competitors...(absolutely and relatively)
In fact, there is another reason for a powerful corporation to settle this suit. If no one challenges the patent, then those corporations which are best able to assume the cost of settlement will gain an advantage over any rival which is not so able. If one of those lesser competitors should pursue patent invalidation, the larger corporations still gain the same relative advantage and may even recoup the cost of settlement and perhaps damages as well.
Perhaps a class action lawsuit should be brought to settle this case?
It will also be an injustice if this individual is allowed to accumulate wealth through this 'legal fraud'.
How should this have occurred? Simply put, the USPTO should not have granted the patent. But again they have every incentive to do so. Approving the patent incurs more fees. (?) The resulting litigation can only benefit them. (They will not be held accountable, there is really no penalty in this regard that does not get passed the the tax-payers.) It is in the interest of the largest corporations to permit this injustice in the USPTO because they can use similar tactics and the cost of settlement is always a relative benefit to them.
I don't see in that quote a call for government intervention, although it does make clear that Smith considered collusion a bad thing. I'll go grep Wealth of Nations, but maybe you could quote some remedy that Smith offers for this ill?
Oh, it might also be interesting to consider the GE conspiracy case in this regard. IIRC, GE could have lowered prices so far as to eliminate its competitors, but its competitors had asked it to conspire to raise prices. GE faced a dilemma: if it lowered prices it was using monopoly power against its competitors, if it conspired it was guilty of that. GE decided that the cost of a conspiracy case was less than the cost of an anti-competion case, etc.
May be better to say fission technology IS that; but with paranoids/anti-humans swaying an ignorant populace which elects appeasing cowards, there have been no approvals in over twenty years for the construction of reactors in the USA.
The facility has a fence at a fairly large distance away. Not because of the sensitivity of the experiment though, but to cut down on the number of bullets entering the facility. Yup, locals apparently can't tell the difference between a building and an animal. Or maybe they were shooting at animals (humans are too). Or are they just really bad shots? No, wait! It gets better! I'm in the cafe and there's this guy telling me about some eerie government facility that seems to be top secret, hush hush and all that. On and on he goes with conspiracy theory... Suddenly he identifies the facility (by location)- you guessed it - LIGO. (He didn't know the name) Apparently the fence is what aroused suspicion among the locals.
Darn it! That's "Microsoft == Monopoly", not "Microsoft = Monopoly". The variable is already initialized, it's just being tested now. On the other hand . . .
Setting aside possible illegalities like surreptiously licensing software and then squashing the author's company . ..
may be a lot to set aside. Yesterday was doubly sad. The DoJ is winning the trial, and the free market is a bit worse off for it. But what you set aside is being ignored, and we're a bit worse off for that too.
1. Do you agree with the judge's findings of fact in the Microsoft case? () Agree () Disagree
Well it's Friday, and I've only read the first one-hundred pages; they seem to be straight-foward and limited to the matter of law. So I'll agree. But if he says anything that indicates a judgement in the next hundred pages I'll say no because this document isn't supposed to contain that. Of course I think this part of the legal system is bad, but at least they don't seem to go too wacky like they did with the GE conspiracy case.
2. Does Microsoft, in your opinion, have illegal monopoly power in the software operating systems for personal computers? () Yes () No
IANAL. Illegal? Yes, but what isn't nowadays? Is their use of power bad? Yes. Should it be illegal? I have to say no, but I have my doubts about nature of corporations; they are state granted and seem to exist as a 'legal' means for the state to seize power. I'd have no objection to state certification (not granting) of a contract among men that accomplishes similar ends.
3. What action should the judge take to punish Microsoft? (Please select all that apply.) () Impose fines. () Order changes in company practices. () Split the company into multiple companies. () No action.
Three options for punishment and one for no action? Seems a bit tilted. I'll give two more in case you said no to question #2: () The DoJ should apologize for abusive litigation. () The anti-trust laws should be repealed.
4. Does the judge's decision go too far? () Yes. () No.
Decision? He hasn't made one yet. This is the statement of what he will consider as empirical fact when he goes to make his decision. Is the statement skewed against MS? Yes, but that's because the laws are and the judge is acting in accordance with the law. MS will settle or be found guilty of these charges and that will be a great injustice and a double blow to human rights; the violations of Gates's rights and the failure to prevent the actual violations of others' rights at the hands of MS.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the real reason the government doesn't want strong public encyption. It threatens their ability to tax. If all transactions are encrypted and privacy exists (i.e., - companies don't distribute 'marketing data'), then there is no way for them to prosecute or collect.
What we need is a government that only protects individual rights. No more and certainly no less. Health care, education, roads, et al. are not rights. Life, liberty, property, and privacy are rights and they are not-so-slowly being cut away.
This is especially important because we live in a service economy. That's where the money is. (Look at Red Hat.) If the government continues its monopoly on services, there will come a day when the people say no more and then the government will hand off that monopoly to some corporation (like Microsoft, for education!) and then we'll really be screwed.
This is civilization. The progress to a private society. It used to be that the government controlled everything. Then century after century they controlled less and less. Some societies survived the transistions well (Ancient Greece). Others didn't (the Pharohs). And in some places people became slaves of monopolies granted by the government (Rome/Feudal Society).
The US survived the industrial revolution because of the ideas of Aristotle and Locke. It almost didn't (The War Between the States).
We are faced with a new revolution. Call it what you will, define it as you like, but be reasonable. Some call it the 'Digital Revolution', some call it the 'Internet Revolution' and I'm sure there's a million other names that focus on different long-term changes that we barely notice because our lives are so short (and that's changing too).
The fact remains that we are thinking animals. We survive by our good ideas and die by our bad ones. Human evolution is intellectual. Since we became human we have changed our environment to fit our needs, but we often neglect to change our ideas to fit the environment we create.
"My privilege to write these sanguinary sentences in soft security was bought for me by rivers of blood poured upon many fields, in many lands, but I possess not one single little paltry right or privilege that come to me as a result of persuasion, agitation for reform, or any kindred method of procedure." -- Mark Twain
Can we change?
Oh well. :(
Thanks though.
I've got a Toshiba Portege 3010. It has a port expander that allows me to plug in a second monitor. There's a button labeled 'Fn' that pressed with 'F5' switches the display to either monitor or both.
I was wondering if there is a way to use this to create a dual-headed display?
What kind of Toshiba? What button? I've got a Portege 3010 and I used a config file from the Linux laptop site. It seems to work just fine, but if there's some more fine tuning I could do, I would like to.
I too thought of Dune. Of course, a gratuitous mention of The Matrix also seems to be in order. The Matrix.
The idea of machines putting people out of work goes back to, at least, Marx. It's always been shown not to be the case. (Consider our current level of technology, our population, and our material wealth compared to that of the past.)
I think we will soon face the challenge that other civilizations have faced. Are we sufficiently aware of our own devices (mechanical, intellectual, political, et al.) to control our destiny?
No, I'm not going to ask if there will be Linux support.
:)
This robot is a networked device which is a feature I don't recall the AIBO having. Put this together with X10 devices and you could dominate the world by voice! (Or at least the part you live in.)
I imagine the penguinish color theme will be my choice if there is . . . enough money in my bank account! (See? I didn't ask about Linux support
I was born between late March and late April, but the horoscope doesn't fit at all. Must be because I'm not a geek. Or maybe my parents lied?
I'm suprised I haven't seen anyone mention the one-handed keyboard + pointer combo. IIRC the demo that Jobs saw at Xerox PARC had a chord keyboard and some sort of mouse. I can't buy hardware right now, but for my next desktop I'm going use a Dvorak one-handed with a trackball (maybe). Then again, I may never buy a desktop if I can find a monocular that does at least 800x600 :)
This was a rather nasty thing to do. As Mr. Perens has already stated, he did not intend for the email to be posted to Slashdot. Couldn't somebody have, as a courtesy, checked with him before this went up? Even if only to make sure that he was really the one that sent the message?
There were 11 follow-ups on the Debian mailing list last I checked and then I reload Slashdot to find nearly 100 comments already posted to this article. I think it took a total of 30 minutes for all of this.
Will Slashdot be changing from green to yellow? This kind of sensationalism within the community only hurts us. I first started reading Slashdot early this year and in that short time I've been here the tone of the articles has gone from 'Stuff that matters.' to that of the mock page 'Stuff that splatters'. Not entirely, of course, but the average is moving that way.
Maybe there should be some sort of flag system for articles. As an over-simplified example, good vs. bad news. New advances, project completions, et al. are good. Censorship, legal action, things that Microsoft does are bad. Bad news seems to have five times the impact as good news, judging from what I recall of comment counts. If there aren't five times or more 'good news' articles, Slashdot becomes the hive of raving lunatics that other news wires think it is.
Perhaps a survey of articles should be done. Maybe weigh the value of an article by the number of comments and their moderation points. It would probably be best to exclude funny moderations. Then classify the articles according to a flag system and see what is most beneficial to us. Hell, that could probably be the start of a doctoral thesis in something.
I don't mean to say that 'bad news' is unimportant or should be ignored. But since bad trends are more important than bad events, perhaps the reporting should reflect that. Somethings are urgent ('Congress voting on suprise bill tomorrow' et al.); but most bad news isn't really new, it's the same-old-**** in a new form which indicates that there is a more fundamental problem that hasn't been addressed.
Darn it, my fingers are starting to hurt. Ciao.
When the story about the US Gov't starting an anti-hacking 'education' campaign (a la D.A.R.E.) was posted, someone did refer to Linux as a gateway operating system.
Which is rather strange because Gateway only ships MS Windows boxes, last I checked?
5.No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
I suspect the language is there in the Corel EULA because minors cannot (usually?) be bound by contract. Of course, since buying just about anything is agreeing to a license (copyright, patent, conditions of sale, etc.) I have to imagine that minors cannot legally live! Darn interesting topic, I just wish I had more to say.
Oh, yeah: IANAL.
Something that seem to be forgotten in all of this is that creating an inherently non-private system leaves you vulnerable by private citizens. We've already seen cases where snooping neighbors with video cameras bring charges of 'sodomy' against couples engaging in oral sex in their own bedroom. Wireless (non-cellular) phone conversations can be intercepted with a police scanner. Start implementing programs like this and FANGS (remote deactivation of automobiles) and soon high-tech hoodlums will rule the cities. And usually those hoodlums are kids who act with great impugnity.
--- Gratuitous ECHELON-Baiting Mode = 1 ---
Since it's the FBI that's asking this, I'll have to guess that they just heard about all the neat toys the NSA has and wanted to get some of their own.
--- Gratuitous ECHELON-Baiting Mode = 0 ---
This kind of news breaks more frequently every day. Something is seriously wrong with our government, and I don't mean taxes, the interstate commerce clause, anti-trust laws, welfare, the socialization of healthcare, state dictators and their minions, UN involvement, etc. I think there are some aspects of political theory that our forefathers never worked out. See for example my recent post about the failures of the patent system.
Also consider the recent actions - or the mere existence of - the House Republican Conference. This group is not a part of the government, though it's members are in situ. It's membership is those elected representative who are affiliated with a particular political party (which genus the founders did not want). In violation of the rules for naming of Internet domains the HRC acquired the Internet domain HRC.GOV (it should have been HRC.ORG[Check it out and laugh]). Perhaps it can be argued that this is criminal fraud, but who are the victims? How have they been injured? Is there intent to deceive and if so regarding what? And who is liable, the grantor of the domain or the grantee? It is clear that this action is deceitful, and it threatens liberty because it grant the appearance of governmental power to the grantee.
Grant me a couple of premises for a moment. A good government's only purpose is to protect individual rights. Suppose also that it is clear what those rights are and what is a violation of them. Well you've still got a 200 year old problem: How do you set up a government that does just that and continues to do just that? The biggest loophole in the US Constitution is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Now look at the constitution of the (ungh!) Confederate States of America; they added a little bit to that clause that limited the powers it granted. As I understand it, the southern states viewed the actions of the northern states as an economic attack on two fronts: (1) through the excessive regulation of commerce particular to the south, and (2) through the immediate abolishment of the principal means of production in the south (slavery). Now, I'm not a Confederate apologist, but I've read their constitution. They include the aforementioned change to the ICC, and they even seemed intent on 'phasing out' slavery in favor of agricultural machinery. Why do I mention this if I'm not an apologist? Because it may be an example of the kind of problem I'm talking about.
There are parts of our government that may be 'optional', like the particular implementation of electoral representation, or of regulatory powers, or of law enforcement. The goal should always be the protection of individual rights, but the different paths to that goal sometimes have unforeseen forks that lead straight to tyranny or chaos. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." (IIRC)
I've wandered off-topic a bit. Just a brief addendum now. Yes, I know Slashdot is read around the world; I refer to the US as the only existing country for convenience, not of ignorance or arrogance. I live in the a former confederate state, and I don't like what that means to most people around here; I'm granting the statesmen of the CSA the benefit of the doubt, their progeny don't inherit it. I think that and the late hour of this post are all the asbestos I need, so...
That's all.
This is just a question, not a suggestion.
Microsoft surely doesn't handle the routing of the Internet. I've heard of something called the UDP - USENET Death Penalty - whereby some ISP's are blocked from USENET.
Could something similar be done to prevent MS from usurping the net? Something like a refusal-to-route if certain protocols aren't followed or perhaps if bandwidth is consumed by all those propritary barnacles on MS-software produced documents?
This question should be considered in at least three ways:
1. Is it possible in code?
2. Could it be implemented?
3. Would such a thing be desireable?
Does anyone know how far and deep Real's drive scans went? Do they still do it? What do they collect? Is my GNU/Linux box now vulnerable?
Where and for what do I sue?
I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take closed source software anymore!
As I understand it - the US government claims that you can only sue it if it decides to let itself be sued. (And yes, this is a Cooper pair of bogons.)
I wasn't thinking of a class-action suit against the USPTO however. I was thinking that any smaller corporations or individuals faced with such spurious IP suits should cooperate in the invalidation of said claims of IP. This will minimize their costs and perhaps even entice the larger corporations to join in.
From my notebook of random thoughts:
(Yes, really. These are the unedited musings of me last night.)
Or perhaps consider the individual who has been granted a patent for a software engineering method in spite the existence of prior art. Most reports indicate that those being sued for patent infringement are likely to settle rather than litigate to have the patent invalidated because the accounting cost of a settlement is less. Regardless of the outcome, an injustice has been done because resources have been wasted. If litigation is pursued, some individuals will have assumed a financial burden that benefits their competitors...(absolutely and relatively)
In fact, there is another reason for a powerful corporation to settle this suit. If no one challenges the patent, then those corporations which are best able to assume the cost of settlement will gain an advantage over any rival which is not so able. If one of those lesser competitors should pursue patent invalidation, the larger corporations still gain the same relative advantage and may even recoup the cost of settlement and perhaps damages as well.
Perhaps a class action lawsuit should be brought to settle this case?
It will also be an injustice if this individual is allowed to accumulate wealth through this 'legal fraud'.
How should this have occurred? Simply put, the USPTO should not have granted the patent. But again they have every incentive to do so. Approving the patent incurs more fees. (?) The resulting litigation can only benefit them. (They will not be held accountable, there is really no penalty in this regard that does not get passed the the tax-payers.) It is in the interest of the largest corporations to permit this injustice in the USPTO because they can use similar tactics and the cost of settlement is always a relative benefit to them.
I don't see in that quote a call for government intervention, although it does make clear that Smith considered collusion a bad thing. I'll go grep Wealth of Nations, but maybe you could quote some remedy that Smith offers for this ill?
Oh, it might also be interesting to consider the GE conspiracy case in this regard. IIRC, GE could have lowered prices so far as to eliminate its competitors, but its competitors had asked it to conspire to raise prices. GE faced a dilemma: if it lowered prices it was using monopoly power against its competitors, if it conspired it was guilty of that. GE decided that the cost of a conspiracy case was less than the cost of an anti-competion case, etc.
Alright, maybe I'm a sucker, but I tried it. Besides a burning stick, all I saw were some...
Woah, never mind! You really have to wait almost the full minute!
The stick doesn't have to be aflame, but just smoldering.
Cool!
May be better to say fission technology IS that; but with paranoids/anti-humans swaying an ignorant populace which elects appeasing cowards, there have been no approvals in over twenty years for the construction of reactors in the USA.
It's a matter of accounting. You don't count the fuel, just the spark.
From what I hear:
The facility has a fence at a fairly large distance away. Not because of the sensitivity of the experiment though, but to cut down on the number of bullets entering the facility. Yup, locals apparently can't tell the difference between a building and an animal. Or maybe they were shooting at animals (humans are too). Or are they just really bad shots? No, wait! It gets better! I'm in the cafe and there's this guy telling me about some eerie government facility that seems to be top secret, hush hush and all that. On and on he goes with conspiracy theory...
Suddenly he identifies the facility (by location)- you guessed it - LIGO. (He didn't know the name)
Apparently the fence is what aroused suspicion among the locals.
Hey! I didn't see the Y2K-compliance mentioned last time I checked the site. Isn't that progress?!? :)
Darn it! That's "Microsoft == Monopoly", not "Microsoft = Monopoly". The variable is already initialized, it's just being tested now. On the other hand . . .
I agree! But I think this:
.
Setting aside possible illegalities like surreptiously licensing software and then squashing the author's company . .
may be a lot to set aside. Yesterday was doubly sad. The DoJ is winning the trial, and the free market is a bit worse off for it. But what you set aside is being ignored, and we're a bit worse off for that too.
1. Do you agree with the judge's findings of fact in the Microsoft case?
() Agree
() Disagree
Well it's Friday, and I've only read the first one-hundred pages; they seem to be straight-foward and limited to the matter of law. So I'll agree. But if he says anything that indicates a judgement in the next hundred pages I'll say no because this document isn't supposed to contain that. Of course I think this part of the legal system is bad, but at least they don't seem to go too wacky like they did with the GE conspiracy case.
2. Does Microsoft, in your opinion, have illegal monopoly power in the software operating systems for personal computers?
() Yes
() No
IANAL. Illegal? Yes, but what isn't nowadays? Is their use of power bad? Yes. Should it be illegal? I have to say no, but I have my doubts about nature of corporations; they are state granted and seem to exist as a 'legal' means for the state to seize power. I'd have no objection to state certification (not granting) of a contract among men that accomplishes similar ends.
3. What action should the judge take to punish Microsoft?
(Please select all that apply.)
() Impose fines.
() Order changes in company practices.
() Split the company into multiple companies.
() No action.
Three options for punishment and one for no action? Seems a bit tilted. I'll give two more in case you said no to question #2:
() The DoJ should apologize for abusive litigation.
() The anti-trust laws should be repealed.
4. Does the judge's decision go too far?
() Yes.
() No.
Decision? He hasn't made one yet. This is the statement of what he will consider as empirical fact when he goes to make his decision. Is the statement skewed against MS? Yes, but that's because the laws are and the judge is acting in accordance with the law. MS will settle or be found guilty of these charges and that will be a great injustice and a double blow to human rights; the violations of Gates's rights and the failure to prevent the actual violations of others' rights at the hands of MS.