I do not find this analogy persuasive. Microsoft cannot prevent me from installing any software I wish on my x86 PC, nor can they prevent me from developing any application I want that doesn't steal their code. I may not be likely to succeed because of the way that the market tends to favor established firms (the network effect), but I don't believe that it justifies nationalization of my competitor's property.
You are suggesting holding businesses to a standard higher than mere morality; something more like altruism. It is already against the law for companies to kill and steal; you seem to be suggesting something more.
But there is no real competition in fields dominated by Microsoft.
You're right. Linux is no competition for Windows.
Could it be that it's share is maintained by distributing it alongside a monopoly-product?
You're begging the question! I never denied that Windows has vastly superior market share to other, perhaps technically better alternatives. But the question is WHY? And the answer is because users like Microsoft products. To criminally punish Microsoft for consumer preferences is asinine.
AS someone who has sat in the prosecutor's seat, let me respond. Ultimately, the jury system will be as competent as the citizenry are willing to make it. I would note that incompetent juries tend to favor defendants, and that's why they often do not elect to waive their right to jury trial and simply try the case to the judge, which is always an option. The jury system does have some quirks, such as selecting against people with special knowledge related to the case. In your example, your doctor g/f. The problem is not that her education was prejudicial, but that her education would giver her undue influence over the other jurors, due to their tendency to defer to experts. That said, I definitely respect - as a prosecutor - the role that juries play in keeping the criminal codes reasonable and understandable, and as a defense "box"* against excessive state power (jury nullification does happen!). I do not think it should be abolished. Defendants who want a more professional fact-finder can try their case to the judge. The state, of course, should be bound to whatever the defendant chooses.
* Referring to the colloquialism: "You have four boxes. Use them in the proper order: (1) Soap (2) Ballot (3) Jury (4) Ammunition."
If the EU would take the copyright and stuff from microsoft and develope windows on it's own, It would be for specific reasons and it would be well known why.
Would they ensure that those stolen products would not be sold in other countries? Would they guarantee that they would not be pirated around the world, replacing legitimate MS products? If not, will the EU compensate MS for its losses?
Hey, that's business, chief. It gets dirty. But evil? I generally reserve that category for more serious things, like, say, the state-ordered theft of other people's property.
allow competitors to create compatible alternatives, giving them a fair footing in an open market.
In other words, something their competitiors failed to earn on merit. Don't patronize me. MS may have an almost universally dominant position on the desktop, but there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
Madness. It would be the end of the Bern Convention and the start of a cataclysmic trade war - maybe worse. Sheer madness. I don't doubt they would do it though, in their spite, their greed, and their envy.
RTFA. The dispute has to do with licensing Microsoft's proprietary code, and whether or not they were locking open-source projects out of the licensing agreements. MS probably was, out of fear that if their code was incorporated into an open-source project, it would be open-sourced. The EU is not requiring MS to open-source their code.
What difference does it make? I've been repeatedly informed that this information will be made public ANYWAYS. Frankly, I think it would be more of a stigma to have all these accusations out there and never face trial, than to publicly have the state unable to prove its case in a fair trial.
And as an aside, there is no such thing as a verdict of "innocent," only a verdict of "not guilty."
but assuming the majority of people are open minded is a laugh, in any country especially the United States!!! The land of freedom fries??? The home of FOX??
You seem have a strange definition of "open-minded," which apparently enatails reaching certain conclusions...do you not recognize the fallacy here?
Yes and no. For federal grand juries, at least, the lawyers and the jurors are sworn to secrecy. The witnesses, however, are not, and may reveal both the questions they were asked and the answers they gave.
Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?
In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.
but the person on trial has just potentialy had their life ruined
What?!? Unless something has radically changed in criminal procedure, the result of a mistrial is acquittal (without jeopardy attaching). So if you are a defendant, you want to do everything possible to prevent you from getting a fair trial. Because if a fair trial can't be provided, you win.
Your post make no sense. You invent an implausible hypothetical scenario that is self-contradictory (extradition for violating a ban which can't exist?) in order to rationalize an actual scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not find this analogy persuasive. Microsoft cannot prevent me from installing any software I wish on my x86 PC, nor can they prevent me from developing any application I want that doesn't steal their code. I may not be likely to succeed because of the way that the market tends to favor established firms (the network effect), but I don't believe that it justifies nationalization of my competitor's property.
You are suggesting holding businesses to a standard higher than mere morality; something more like altruism. It is already against the law for companies to kill and steal; you seem to be suggesting something more.
You're right. Linux is no competition for Windows. Could it be that it's share is maintained by distributing it alongside a monopoly-product?
You're begging the question! I never denied that Windows has vastly superior market share to other, perhaps technically better alternatives. But the question is WHY? And the answer is because users like Microsoft products. To criminally punish Microsoft for consumer preferences is asinine.
How was his trial unfair? He was acquitted! What do you want, the prosecutors to go to jail?
AS someone who has sat in the prosecutor's seat, let me respond. Ultimately, the jury system will be as competent as the citizenry are willing to make it. I would note that incompetent juries tend to favor defendants, and that's why they often do not elect to waive their right to jury trial and simply try the case to the judge, which is always an option. The jury system does have some quirks, such as selecting against people with special knowledge related to the case. In your example, your doctor g/f. The problem is not that her education was prejudicial, but that her education would giver her undue influence over the other jurors, due to their tendency to defer to experts. That said, I definitely respect - as a prosecutor - the role that juries play in keeping the criminal codes reasonable and understandable, and as a defense "box"* against excessive state power (jury nullification does happen!). I do not think it should be abolished. Defendants who want a more professional fact-finder can try their case to the judge. The state, of course, should be bound to whatever the defendant chooses. * Referring to the colloquialism: "You have four boxes. Use them in the proper order: (1) Soap (2) Ballot (3) Jury (4) Ammunition."
Then it really shouldn't be so hard to find a dozen or so people who haven't even done that, should it? Making the whole ban pointless.
Trade war? Escalating tariffs? Dissolution of NATO (may happen soon anyways, but still...)
Would they ensure that those stolen products would not be sold in other countries? Would they guarantee that they would not be pirated around the world, replacing legitimate MS products? If not, will the EU compensate MS for its losses?
Hey, that's business, chief. It gets dirty. But evil? I generally reserve that category for more serious things, like, say, the state-ordered theft of other people's property.
If it's funny, it's because it's true.
In other words, something their competitiors failed to earn on merit. Don't patronize me. MS may have an almost universally dominant position on the desktop, but there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
Madness. It would be the end of the Bern Convention and the start of a cataclysmic trade war - maybe worse. Sheer madness. I don't doubt they would do it though, in their spite, their greed, and their envy.
I work in criminal court. We have these funny things called "plea negotiations."
RTFA. The dispute has to do with licensing Microsoft's proprietary code, and whether or not they were locking open-source projects out of the licensing agreements. MS probably was, out of fear that if their code was incorporated into an open-source project, it would be open-sourced. The EU is not requiring MS to open-source their code.
Spoken like somebody who has no clue what is contained in either document.
Ask and ye shall receive. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html
Advocating Genocide
Promotion of hatred
Why yes, there was.
If VB.NET, the best solution is to learn to live with Mono licensing, because unless P/Invoke is used, porting is as simple as compile-->run.
Wow! I'd buy that for a dollar!
And as an aside, there is no such thing as a verdict of "innocent," only a verdict of "not guilty."
You seem have a strange definition of "open-minded," which apparently enatails reaching certain conclusions...do you not recognize the fallacy here?
Yes and no. For federal grand juries, at least, the lawyers and the jurors are sworn to secrecy. The witnesses, however, are not, and may reveal both the questions they were asked and the answers they gave.
http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
There seems to be a lot of this going around lately...
What?!? Unless something has radically changed in criminal procedure, the result of a mistrial is acquittal (without jeopardy attaching). So if you are a defendant, you want to do everything possible to prevent you from getting a fair trial. Because if a fair trial can't be provided, you win.
Your post make no sense. You invent an implausible hypothetical scenario that is self-contradictory (extradition for violating a ban which can't exist?) in order to rationalize an actual scenario.