Are they going to go after Apple for bundling Safari with OSX?
Why would they? Apple is not breaking antitrust law, at least not with regard to those products.
How can a vendor even try to sell an OS in this day and age that doesn't come with a web browser?
How can Nvidia sell a graphics card that doesn't come with a media player or OS? Microsoft is the only one being banned from bundling, not Dell, not HP, not Sony. The difference to the end user is your computer might come with Firefox or Safari or Opera pre-installed instead of IE. If it does come with IE, it might be a bit cheaper since MS will be paying the vendor to include IE and they can deduct that from the retail cost.
If Microsoft actually goes along with this, the best they can do is to present users with a choice when they go to "the Internet". In IE7, users are given a choice to select their preferred search provider. It seems like they will have to expand that and make the user choose their preferred web browser.
That is, potentially, a possible solution that might satisfy or partially satisfy regulators.
Of course they will make IE the default, and include out dated versions of the others.
Having IE as a default or including more up to date version of their own would both still be antitrust violations.
How are consumers going to feel if they buy a computer and it comes with no browser? It's essentially useless out of the box.
Are you astroturfing or just ignorant enough to think that is a possibility. Antitrust law applies to what MS can bundle not what OEMs can bundle. If you're competent enough to install Windows from a disk, you're competent enough to install a browser too. Nothing stops Dell from pre-installing a browser, they just have to choose if it will be Opera or IE on even footing.
The Government operates by restricting freedom. Saying that the Government was ever intended to protect freedom is a contradiction.
Technically, according to the founders, the purpose of the government is to mitigate conflicts of rights between individuals, that is to pass laws to decide where a given action by one person infringes upon the rights of another. For example, the freedom to throw a punch generally ends when it connects with someone else's person or possessions.
More importantly, the US government began by enumerating individual rights the government of the US were specifically banned from messing with. Such was their respect for individual freedoms
The US constitution specifically grants the states the right to write laws. Marriage is not a right which is explicitly or implicitly (in my opinion) guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. This amendment to the state constitution is completely legal.
The federal constitution specifies certain rights that cannot be infringed by the government and that includes by state governments. For example, state cannot pass laws that violate the first amendment restricting speech. When my state passed laws banning swearing in front of women, that law was challenged in the courts. It was overturned because it violated two items in the US constitution, both free speech and equal rights for women.
The constitution bans discrimination by the government based upon race, religion and sex. That's why the state interracial marriage bans were struck down by the Supreme court in short order and that is why bans on same-gender marriages will be struck down as soon as they make it to through the courts.
"The rule of law is not always just"
That's true, but if you think the law is important, you should follow it.
Ever heard of civil disobedience? It's how a lot of unjust laws in our country were overturned.
"there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it"
And this is one of those times?! Seriously?!!!! What are you thinking? This law doesn't take anything real away from anybody.
I never said this was time to disobey the law, just fight against it, and I was thinking of fighting within the courts. It's not like it should take much, just get it into the supreme court as quickly as possible so justice can be done.
I'm just sickened that so many people are so prejudiced and at the same time do not value freedom such that states could pass these laws in the first place. I think everyone who voted for one of these bans should stop using the word "freedom" when reciting the pledge. They can just be quiet when that part of the pledge comes up so as not to make hypocrites of themselves.
It doesn't make any sense at all to complain that others are acting illegally, but then make plans to act illegally yourself.
First, it was your assumption that I was advocating illegal behavior and second, they are acting illegally in passing a law. You don't see the contradiction in lawmakers intentionally writing laws they know are invalid after having sworn an oath to uphold the US constitution in order to get into office?
Everyone thinks their way is the right way, this not something that is unique to you.
Yeah, but people on the other side of this issue are on the anti-freedom side. They're fighting against the ideals upon which this nation was founded, ideals of individual freedom and no government mandates on the basis of religion. Equivocating that there are two sides is pointless and doesn't make the other side any more ethical or legal.
States are allowed to make their own laws. The United States is a federation not a dictatorship.
Dictatorship? I think a two-thirds majority of elected representatives is pretty hard to paint as a dictator. Sorry, states are only allowed to create laws that do not violate the federal constitution. Your claims simply don't change that.
That depends wholly on the scope you set. Apple most definitely has a monopoly on the Apple platform.
Well that answers the question. No you don't.
Monopolies (both legally and economically) are bounded by the market from which consumers can choose alternative products. if you're talking about Apple, that means the computer systems market which is hardware software, some applications and some support all as a bundle. Consumers can choose an Apple system or a Dell or an HP or many others. Hence, no monopoly influence.
If you're talking about MS, however, you're talking about the desktop OS market and the consumers are people like Dell and HP who buy them to preinstall. Apple doesn't even sell into that market. You choices are basically Windows, Linux, and Solaris and only one has any real market share... hence the monopoly position.
You can't get rid of the apps (f.ex. QuickTime) although you may choose to ignore them. Much in the same way as IE binds into Windows.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with antitrust law since Apple doesn't have a monopoly on OS's or applications or computer systems. They are close to having monopoly influence on the portable music player market, depending upon one's market definition and if media playing cell phones are considered by average purchasers as alternatives to iPods.
The tidal change experienced on the Firefox download day and the resulting usage of Firefox clearly demonstrates that although IE still exists on the Windows machines, it's in no position to claim a monopoly.
Great, but that has jack to do with antitrust law since obtaining a monopoly is not illegal. Leveraging a monopoly is illegal, so it is MS's use of their desktop OS market to gain market share in the Web browser market that is being brought to trial. It's not about MS having a monopoly on Web browsers, but about having a large market share in Web browsers despite having a crappy browser all because of their monopoly product (Windows). It is about Web technologies being stuck a decade in the past because of MS's illegal leveraging of Windows to keep IE as the largest and most influential browser.
This is a battle that should be won by who produces the best quality, not by who produces the largest group of moronic lawyers running their errands for them.
It's too late. It's already been one by the company that produces the crappiest product, but has a monopoly to leverage to make people use it anyway. That's been the case for decades while the Web stagnates and developers and users suffer. Antitrust law is about making sure products like Web browsers have to compete fairly on their merits, not based upon the influence of a monopoly in another market.
Look in this case it is more like they have their criminal and have a reason, a formal reason to imprison him. It is like Al Capone and the tax authorities.
Microsoft went ballistic against EU institutions and opted for a burned soil scenario. If you negotiate that hard and fool administration it will fight back and they will stab you in the back without mercy. This is exactly what is happening now.
They're responding to a specific complaint from a wronged party. In the case of Al Capone they could not get evidence to convict him of other crimes, so they found one that was related to the criminal activities they could prosecute him for. MS, however, is not a person. MS has been convicted of other crimes but persists in breaking the law anyways because they are making more money breaking the law and paying fines and settlements than they are stopping their crimes. If they keep breaking the law, the courts should keep smacking them until they stop.
These anti-competitive lawsuits are starting to borderline on ridiculous.
Every single other example you presented did not have monopoly influence on any market. Do you not know what a 'trust' is? Do you even understand why such laws exist or how breaking them undermines a market?
Do you believe in the rule of law? All the laws were followed in passing prop 8. If the law says that a simple majority can approve the amendment, than that's how it is. If you think thats wrong, you have to pass an amendment to change the law.
We already did, in the US constitution. Your assertion makes as much sense as claiming a city can legalize murder within its boundaries. It doesn't matter if they pass a law, since it is violates a higher law.
If you say that you would violently oppose these measures if they were passed, you can not also claim to be in favor of the rule of law. Your kind of thinking is what led to the civil war.
The rule of law is not always just and there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it, but in this case it is simply people within the law trying to weasel out of correctly passing and amendment to the US constitution in favor of changing state laws and counting on the courts to be slow in overturning the law they knew was unconstitutional when they passed.
It is not a consistent position. You claim that the law is the basis of your argument, but then say that you will oppose the result if you do not favor it.
No, I said respect for individual freedoms was the basis for my position and that currently the US constitution protects those freedoms as well. If you were to burn the constitution and write new laws I would not necessarily support them.
The only thing that's really consistent is your conviction to do what you think is right.
Nope, it is much more specific than that. I believe in and defend freedom, which was once an important American value and forms the basis for the US government.
Why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Actually, several things do. For one they then have to worry about support costs associated with having multiple browsers for updating, interoperability testing, and security. The also have to be able to handle users trying to install IE, when IE is not normally dealt with in that fashion. Finally, they have to worry about users trying to use nonstandard Web pages designed for IE because MS's undue influence has intentionally broken cross browser interoperability of the Web (as demonstrated by their internal memos exposed during other cases). All of these are concerns for OEMs.
Again - why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from offering choice of browsers on first boot.
Because legally, that isn't good enough. MS broke the law and the market is trashed. Claiming that now, a decade later OEMs should have to put in additional effort and expense and that will somehow make the market a level playing field is simply absurd.
How does MS bundling more than one browser solve the problem? If MS were to bundle say, IE + FF - then Opera would be at an even bigger disadvantage than it is today. If they were to bundle IE + FF + Opera, then some other random browser maker will sue claiming they are at a disadvantage. And the disadvantage will generally last for one windows version -- which is at least 3 years on average.
I agree they have to install all browsers that request it, or none. But there is no reason they can't add browsers as requests were made.
A browser a fundamental end user requirement - MS has to ship one with their OS.
No they don't. They can ship one or they can obey the law and let OEMs pick one and install it. Why can't they let OEMs install whichever one they choose? Is that too onerous? It wouldn't be if MS weren't using it as a way to stifle competition.
The EU simply has no business getting involved here. They're just making another withdrawal from their personal ATM - that's all it is.
And then why did the US charge and convict MS of the same crime? The EU is enforcing the law at the request of a wronged party (Opera). The browser market has been broken, competition stifled for years, and innovation in Web technologies slowed to a crawl all because of the illegal behavior of one company. It is long past time for the EU to step in and try to fix the market, the real question is if they can come up with an effective solution.
The main complaint seems to be that the browser bundled with Windows is too good.
Do you understand the benefits of competition in the free market? It is because of the bundling that IE is no good. Force MS to compete on even ground and they will make IE better or it will lose market. We don't want competition for it's own sake or just to be fair. Competition results in better products and more innovation. Why do you think most Web pages are still relying upon Web technologies developed a decade ago? Innovation has slowed to a crawl for the entire industry.
Are you claiming you think Canonical has undue influence and market share in the desktop OS market, Web browser market, or some other market? Do you know why bundling monopolized and non-monopolized products is illegal?
It is very dangerous when rulings like this come about. Who is to define when bundling of one product with another constitutes antitrust violation?
The courts interpreting the laws.
When Apple "bundles" Safari with Mac OS X, is that antitrust? When you install Ubuntu and Firefox is "bundled" with it, is that antitrust?
You're a bit fuzzy on the 'trust' part of antitrust aren't you? A trust is a company or group of companies that has undue influence on a specific market. The law says they can't abuse that influence.
Why the emphasis on the browser? Because Opera feels it inconvenient that Windows already comes with a browser?
They've already convicted and punished them for bundling other components based upon complaints from companies in other markets. How is that emphasizing the browser?
What about Solitaire? Can that be bundled?
It is probably illegal for MS to bundle it, mind you that doesn't make it illegal for other people to bundle it, it just might mean you get different versions (better versions) based upon which OEM you buy your computer from.
Let me tell you something. I found out about Opera...
Your personal experiences, however, are not reflective of the general market. Most people never find out about Opera or install a new browser. The laws are designed to make Microsoft and Opera compete on even ground and OEMs have a decision as to which browser they should install based upon the merits of the browsers, rather than being forced to install IE because it is bundled with Windows and unremovable and it's nonstandard code has made the Web itself partly broken for all other browsers.
Back to Microsoft. If due to some court case, Microsoft is not allowed to bundle anything together, then soon nobody will be allowed to bundle anything together.
I strongly suggest rather than making a long Slashdot post, next time you spend the same amount of time reading up on antitrust law, what it is, how it works, and why the laws were enacted. Then, you won't have to make weird assumptions and worry that anyone bundling anything could be illegal. The law is fairly clear on what is legal to bundle and what isn't.
They no longer have a monopoly. Apple is nearly at 10% of the market. Linux has some share.
To qualify as a trust you don't have to have 100% of the market. 70% is a general guideline in most laws. You just have to have undue influence on the market. Aside from that, if you read the antitrust laws you'd know that Apple's OS X is not in the same market as Windows, as OEMs cannot purchase OS X.You're still considering things from the perspective of a user, not as a consumer in the OS market (like Dell or HP).
And there is no monopoly in the browser area either. With IE, Konquerer, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, shit the list goes on and on.
No one is claiming there is a monopoly on browsers and that's the point. MS is influencing the browser market using their monopoly on OS's.
...but I am no fan of this lawsuit.
Frankly, I don't think you understand either antitrust law or this particular lawsuit well enough to have an informed opinion.
The EU commission has been investigating whether or not it is a monopoly for some time, despite not having a complaint from any company yet. They're still trying to decide if it is a monopoly, basically if cell phones are valid competitors for playing music (a point being mooted by the iphone and other convergence).
...how it is that the courts in America ruled that Microsoft was ok to keep bundling IE with Windows, while Microsoft's hopes in the EU when faced with the same issue is basically nil?
The thing is, the US courts didn't rule that it was ok for MS to bundle IE and Windows. They ruled it was criminal. Then, a new crop of politicians were elected and MS was one of the largest donors to their reelection funds. They replaced the people prosecuting MS and the punishment for MS's illegal bundling was no to be broken up so they couldn't do it again, but instead to not even be stopped from continuing the crime. Rather, the punishment was a very small fine and basically nothing else. This proved to companies around the world that the US court system is useless for getting judgements against rich corporations if you're not quite as rich. As a result American companies started complaining to the EU about other American companies rathe than bothering with the US courts. The EU, you see, was actually handing down the occasional useful verdict.
Since the US courts and several other courts have already convicted MS of this particular crime and most of the important facts have already been proven in the last case, MS has little or no chance of getting off scott free. The real question is if they will just end up fining them a pile of cash or if they will enforce a punishment that will do good in the long term, like forcing them to de-bundle or adhere to standards as decided by an independent watch group.
Does this mean that Google prefers gay people to Catholics, Blacks and Hispanics?
Your question is flawed as stated because it implies gays cannot be half black half hispanic Catholic homosexuals. Fighting for the legal freedoms of one group in no way implies you prefer that group. It's like claiming because the police stop a white guy from shooting a black guy they prefer blacks, when in reality they're just trying to stop a shooting. Google is trying to stop government discrimination against a minority and they'd probably do the same thing to stop government discrimination against other minorities. If there was a law passed banning people of asian descent from marrying people of other ethnicities and it was making it hard for Google to recruit asians to the area, they'd probably try to get that overturned too. Would that mean they prefer asians over mormons who think such unions are immoral? No, because Google might just as easily work to fight laws discriminating against mormons on some other issue.
Some would make that claim about homosexuality. Others would (ironically) make that claim about about making that claim. What makes you such an expert?
Because America was founded upon the principal of individual freedom and religious freedom. You have to be pretty twisted in your thinking to be able to rationalize Proposition 8 as either since it is removing individual freedoms based upon some portion of the population's religious beliefs.
"Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking."
So, when you agree with the results of the democratic process, it's wrong for others to "take action", but when you disagree, it's ok to take to the streets?
Not at all. I believe in freedom and the constitution of the US and I'll fight to defend both. In this case, it is an attack on both, since this is a state passing laws that violate the US constitution by taking away freedoms specifically listed, such as the freedom from discrimination based upon sex. I'll fight to defend anyone's right to free speech as well as their equal right to legal institutions and protections under the constitution. Sorry, but a simple majority in a state cannot override the republic and the constitution. If they want to ban gay marriage they have to go through the proper motion and overturn the first amendment as well as the federal nondiscrimination laws, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed.
And somehow, he's the one that's causing the problem?!
He's the one fighting against personal freedom and freedom from government interference with religion. So, yeah, he's the one causing a problem, just as all the other people who fight against specific freedoms they dislike are causing problems. There's plenty of blame to go around, but in this instance, he's on the wrong side of the issue, the anti-freedom side.
You need to think about the role of government in your life and come to a consistent position before you do something drastic like that. We don't actually need another civil war. ..
My position is quite consistent and the fact that it does not line up with the opinions of either major party is evidence of that, rather than the converse. As for civil war, we may have never needed the first one, but we surely do need to fight, if not physically, to insure the freedom of all people regardless of whether or not we agree with the decisions they make or the ideals they hold. It is our duty as citizens as several founding fathers ordered us in no uncertain terms.
No, it's like this: "Hey everyone, your marriage is now only recognized as a civil union by the United States. However, it is still recognized as a marriage by your church, your friends, your family, and your God."
And when you travel to a foreign country that uses "marriage" as a legal term (most of them) and you only have proof of a civil union and are denied rights as a result? As soon as a law was passed regarding marriage it became a legal term and as such it is subject to the constitution in its entirety including nondiscrimination clauses. It's a better solution than trying to make up new terms and getting the rest of the world to change (as the EU has already tried).
I don't follow how the particular marital laws in a state would prohibit workers.
Who claims they do? It's not a matter of prohibiting workers, but making it harder for Google to hire and retain workers because of an unconstitutional law. Google is just claiming the effect upon their hiring gives them standing to sue and it is the unconstitutionality of the law that makes it illegal.
If people want to work there and are gay, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to forgo the term "married."
You may be sure, but it is the objective facts that matter, not your opinion.
So why bother?
Maybe they're tired of their top talent leaving and taking jobs with IT firms in Mass. Maybe they're doing this to try to stop some of those people from leaving. Maybe they're losing out when trying to recruit talent because people would rather move to other states or Europe because of anti-gay laws. Maybe none of these things have happened yet, but HR is concerned they will. Maybe Google is just using this as an excuse so they can get good press. Why do you care enough to post about it?
After this, will you fight for the rights of the minority who are not "wired" for monogamy so they can exercise their right to multiple partner marriages?
Personally, I have no problem with polygamy and don't see why it is illegal, but at least it is not so blatantly unconstitutional to ban polygamy. Polygamy involves multiple partners rather than dealing with the race, sex, or religion of the parties involved.I don't really care if people are "wired" for homosexuality or polygamy or if it is simply a lifestyle choice. I value freedom, and that means the freedom of people to choose to do whatever they bloody well want to so long as it is not taking away the freedoms of others. So sure, I'll fight for people's freedom to enter into polygamous relationships and still get married.
Homosexuals have the same right to marry (restricted to someone of the opposite sex) as any one else. Where is the discrimination? To claim that disallowing same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination is to assert that the grouping of the people is what's being discriminated against, not the individuals themselves.
If you want to put it that way, sure. It is illegal to legislatively group (or discriminate in the common parlance) based upon sex. As for the discrimination allow me to explain.
Bob and Jim both want to marry Sue. When the law said Bob could and Jim could not and the only legal difference between Bob and Jim was their race, that was unconstitutional because the constitution prohibits making legal discrimination based upon race. The fact that Jim could marry Nancy and Bob could not, in no way mitigated the fact that he could not marry Sue. Claiming that both Bob and Jim could marry anyone of their own race was likewise did not make any difference.
Now the argument is both Tom and Cindy want to marry Jennifer. It is legal for Tom to do so, but illegal for Jennifer and the only legal difference between the two of them is that Tom is one sex and Cindy is another. Do you see where this is going? Does it matter if Cindy can marry some other person? Nope, not legally. She's being banned from marrying Jennifer and that ban applies only to people of her sex. That's discrimination and every politician involved in the passing of Prop. 8 knew it was unconstitutional when they did it. You see they know it will be overturned, but in the mean time they want to delay things and make people angry so they can use that to get votes. Quite simply, if one person can marry someone and another can't marry that person there must be a criteria other than gender, religion, or race that legally differentiates the two people in question. If not, that's violating the US Constitution.
Just because he tolerates other lifestyles does not mean he should change his beliefs. As long as he's not endangering others, he has every right to express his opinion and his beliefs without being labeled as a bigot.
Paying people money to fund their attempt to pass unconstitutional laws to delay people from being able to exercise their fundamental rights is more than expressing an opinion, it is taking an action.
Is his personal opinion less important just because he's not a minority?
No, but his actions are un-American and bigoted. He's spending money to fight against freedom and to try to delay minorities from being able to exercise their rights. Saying you don't think homosexuals should get married is exercising your freedom of speech and I'll fight to protect his right to say it. Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking.
The courts are constitutional offices. A court can rule that a law is unconstitutional if the law contradicts protections and definitions in the constitution. Once an ammendment is passed, it is treated with the same weight and force as the constitution (by definition, the ammendment adds to the original constitution). On what grounds could the courts side for Google?
They made an amendment to the California state constitution that is blatantly against an amendment of the US constitution. Guess which one trumps the other?
What get's me is all the folks wanting to usurp the lawfully made decisions of the electorate of California. "We don't like this law, just because (supply a reason), so we'll throw it out, whether the voters who voted for it in the first place like it or not".
States rights don't trump the US constitution. Even if half the state of Florida votes to make it illegal for blacks to vote, the federal government won't let the law stand. Sorry, but states rights only apply to items not enumerated in the Constitution. It's a valid issue of states rights if the feds butt in when there is no constitutional amendment, but that is not the case here.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they going to go after Apple for bundling Safari with OSX?
Why would they? Apple is not breaking antitrust law, at least not with regard to those products.
How can a vendor even try to sell an OS in this day and age that doesn't come with a web browser?
How can Nvidia sell a graphics card that doesn't come with a media player or OS? Microsoft is the only one being banned from bundling, not Dell, not HP, not Sony. The difference to the end user is your computer might come with Firefox or Safari or Opera pre-installed instead of IE. If it does come with IE, it might be a bit cheaper since MS will be paying the vendor to include IE and they can deduct that from the retail cost.
If Microsoft actually goes along with this, the best they can do is to present users with a choice when they go to "the Internet". In IE7, users are given a choice to select their preferred search provider. It seems like they will have to expand that and make the user choose their preferred web browser.
That is, potentially, a possible solution that might satisfy or partially satisfy regulators.
Of course they will make IE the default, and include out dated versions of the others.
Having IE as a default or including more up to date version of their own would both still be antitrust violations.
How are consumers going to feel if they buy a computer and it comes with no browser? It's essentially useless out of the box.
Are you astroturfing or just ignorant enough to think that is a possibility. Antitrust law applies to what MS can bundle not what OEMs can bundle. If you're competent enough to install Windows from a disk, you're competent enough to install a browser too. Nothing stops Dell from pre-installing a browser, they just have to choose if it will be Opera or IE on even footing.
The Government operates by restricting freedom. Saying that the Government was ever intended to protect freedom is a contradiction.
Technically, according to the founders, the purpose of the government is to mitigate conflicts of rights between individuals, that is to pass laws to decide where a given action by one person infringes upon the rights of another. For example, the freedom to throw a punch generally ends when it connects with someone else's person or possessions.
More importantly, the US government began by enumerating individual rights the government of the US were specifically banned from messing with. Such was their respect for individual freedoms
The US constitution specifically grants the states the right to write laws. Marriage is not a right which is explicitly or implicitly (in my opinion) guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. This amendment to the state constitution is completely legal.
The federal constitution specifies certain rights that cannot be infringed by the government and that includes by state governments. For example, state cannot pass laws that violate the first amendment restricting speech. When my state passed laws banning swearing in front of women, that law was challenged in the courts. It was overturned because it violated two items in the US constitution, both free speech and equal rights for women.
The constitution bans discrimination by the government based upon race, religion and sex. That's why the state interracial marriage bans were struck down by the Supreme court in short order and that is why bans on same-gender marriages will be struck down as soon as they make it to through the courts.
"The rule of law is not always just"
That's true, but if you think the law is important, you should follow it.
Ever heard of civil disobedience? It's how a lot of unjust laws in our country were overturned.
"there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it"
And this is one of those times?! Seriously?!!!! What are you thinking? This law doesn't take anything real away from anybody.
I never said this was time to disobey the law, just fight against it, and I was thinking of fighting within the courts. It's not like it should take much, just get it into the supreme court as quickly as possible so justice can be done.
I'm just sickened that so many people are so prejudiced and at the same time do not value freedom such that states could pass these laws in the first place. I think everyone who voted for one of these bans should stop using the word "freedom" when reciting the pledge. They can just be quiet when that part of the pledge comes up so as not to make hypocrites of themselves.
It doesn't make any sense at all to complain that others are acting illegally, but then make plans to act illegally yourself.
First, it was your assumption that I was advocating illegal behavior and second, they are acting illegally in passing a law. You don't see the contradiction in lawmakers intentionally writing laws they know are invalid after having sworn an oath to uphold the US constitution in order to get into office?
Everyone thinks their way is the right way, this not something that is unique to you.
Yeah, but people on the other side of this issue are on the anti-freedom side. They're fighting against the ideals upon which this nation was founded, ideals of individual freedom and no government mandates on the basis of religion. Equivocating that there are two sides is pointless and doesn't make the other side any more ethical or legal.
States are allowed to make their own laws. The United States is a federation not a dictatorship.
Dictatorship? I think a two-thirds majority of elected representatives is pretty hard to paint as a dictator. Sorry, states are only allowed to create laws that do not violate the federal constitution. Your claims simply don't change that.
That depends wholly on the scope you set. Apple most definitely has a monopoly on the Apple platform.
Well that answers the question. No you don't.
Monopolies (both legally and economically) are bounded by the market from which consumers can choose alternative products. if you're talking about Apple, that means the computer systems market which is hardware software, some applications and some support all as a bundle. Consumers can choose an Apple system or a Dell or an HP or many others. Hence, no monopoly influence.
If you're talking about MS, however, you're talking about the desktop OS market and the consumers are people like Dell and HP who buy them to preinstall. Apple doesn't even sell into that market. You choices are basically Windows, Linux, and Solaris and only one has any real market share... hence the monopoly position.
You can't get rid of the apps (f.ex. QuickTime) although you may choose to ignore them. Much in the same way as IE binds into Windows.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with antitrust law since Apple doesn't have a monopoly on OS's or applications or computer systems. They are close to having monopoly influence on the portable music player market, depending upon one's market definition and if media playing cell phones are considered by average purchasers as alternatives to iPods.
The tidal change experienced on the Firefox download day and the resulting usage of Firefox clearly demonstrates that although IE still exists on the Windows machines, it's in no position to claim a monopoly.
Great, but that has jack to do with antitrust law since obtaining a monopoly is not illegal. Leveraging a monopoly is illegal, so it is MS's use of their desktop OS market to gain market share in the Web browser market that is being brought to trial. It's not about MS having a monopoly on Web browsers, but about having a large market share in Web browsers despite having a crappy browser all because of their monopoly product (Windows). It is about Web technologies being stuck a decade in the past because of MS's illegal leveraging of Windows to keep IE as the largest and most influential browser.
This is a battle that should be won by who produces the best quality, not by who produces the largest group of moronic lawyers running their errands for them.
It's too late. It's already been one by the company that produces the crappiest product, but has a monopoly to leverage to make people use it anyway. That's been the case for decades while the Web stagnates and developers and users suffer. Antitrust law is about making sure products like Web browsers have to compete fairly on their merits, not based upon the influence of a monopoly in another market.
Look in this case it is more like they have their criminal and have a reason, a formal reason to imprison him. It is like Al Capone and the tax authorities. Microsoft went ballistic against EU institutions and opted for a burned soil scenario. If you negotiate that hard and fool administration it will fight back and they will stab you in the back without mercy. This is exactly what is happening now.
They're responding to a specific complaint from a wronged party. In the case of Al Capone they could not get evidence to convict him of other crimes, so they found one that was related to the criminal activities they could prosecute him for. MS, however, is not a person. MS has been convicted of other crimes but persists in breaking the law anyways because they are making more money breaking the law and paying fines and settlements than they are stopping their crimes. If they keep breaking the law, the courts should keep smacking them until they stop.
These anti-competitive lawsuits are starting to borderline on ridiculous.
Every single other example you presented did not have monopoly influence on any market. Do you not know what a 'trust' is? Do you even understand why such laws exist or how breaking them undermines a market?
I'm expecting from Microsoft to file a complaint versus Apple demanding inclusion of IE on every iPhone and iPod.
Why, do you think MS's lawyers are too stupid to understand antitrust laws?
Do you believe in the rule of law? All the laws were followed in passing prop 8. If the law says that a simple majority can approve the amendment, than that's how it is. If you think thats wrong, you have to pass an amendment to change the law.
We already did, in the US constitution. Your assertion makes as much sense as claiming a city can legalize murder within its boundaries. It doesn't matter if they pass a law, since it is violates a higher law.
If you say that you would violently oppose these measures if they were passed, you can not also claim to be in favor of the rule of law. Your kind of thinking is what led to the civil war.
The rule of law is not always just and there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it, but in this case it is simply people within the law trying to weasel out of correctly passing and amendment to the US constitution in favor of changing state laws and counting on the courts to be slow in overturning the law they knew was unconstitutional when they passed.
It is not a consistent position. You claim that the law is the basis of your argument, but then say that you will oppose the result if you do not favor it.
No, I said respect for individual freedoms was the basis for my position and that currently the US constitution protects those freedoms as well. If you were to burn the constitution and write new laws I would not necessarily support them.
The only thing that's really consistent is your conviction to do what you think is right.
Nope, it is much more specific than that. I believe in and defend freedom, which was once an important American value and forms the basis for the US government.
Why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Actually, several things do. For one they then have to worry about support costs associated with having multiple browsers for updating, interoperability testing, and security. The also have to be able to handle users trying to install IE, when IE is not normally dealt with in that fashion. Finally, they have to worry about users trying to use nonstandard Web pages designed for IE because MS's undue influence has intentionally broken cross browser interoperability of the Web (as demonstrated by their internal memos exposed during other cases). All of these are concerns for OEMs.
Again - why does MS need to provide options? Nothing today prevents OEMs from offering choice of browsers on first boot.
Because legally, that isn't good enough. MS broke the law and the market is trashed. Claiming that now, a decade later OEMs should have to put in additional effort and expense and that will somehow make the market a level playing field is simply absurd.
How does MS bundling more than one browser solve the problem? If MS were to bundle say, IE + FF - then Opera would be at an even bigger disadvantage than it is today. If they were to bundle IE + FF + Opera, then some other random browser maker will sue claiming they are at a disadvantage. And the disadvantage will generally last for one windows version -- which is at least 3 years on average.
I agree they have to install all browsers that request it, or none. But there is no reason they can't add browsers as requests were made.
A browser a fundamental end user requirement - MS has to ship one with their OS.
No they don't. They can ship one or they can obey the law and let OEMs pick one and install it. Why can't they let OEMs install whichever one they choose? Is that too onerous? It wouldn't be if MS weren't using it as a way to stifle competition.
The EU simply has no business getting involved here. They're just making another withdrawal from their personal ATM - that's all it is.
And then why did the US charge and convict MS of the same crime? The EU is enforcing the law at the request of a wronged party (Opera). The browser market has been broken, competition stifled for years, and innovation in Web technologies slowed to a crawl all because of the illegal behavior of one company. It is long past time for the EU to step in and try to fix the market, the real question is if they can come up with an effective solution.
The main complaint seems to be that the browser bundled with Windows is too good.
Do you understand the benefits of competition in the free market? It is because of the bundling that IE is no good. Force MS to compete on even ground and they will make IE better or it will lose market. We don't want competition for it's own sake or just to be fair. Competition results in better products and more innovation. Why do you think most Web pages are still relying upon Web technologies developed a decade ago? Innovation has slowed to a crawl for the entire industry.
Isn't ubuntu/canonical guilty of this?
Are you claiming you think Canonical has undue influence and market share in the desktop OS market, Web browser market, or some other market? Do you know why bundling monopolized and non-monopolized products is illegal?
It is very dangerous when rulings like this come about. Who is to define when bundling of one product with another constitutes antitrust violation?
The courts interpreting the laws.
When Apple "bundles" Safari with Mac OS X, is that antitrust? When you install Ubuntu and Firefox is "bundled" with it, is that antitrust?
You're a bit fuzzy on the 'trust' part of antitrust aren't you? A trust is a company or group of companies that has undue influence on a specific market. The law says they can't abuse that influence.
Why the emphasis on the browser? Because Opera feels it inconvenient that Windows already comes with a browser?
They've already convicted and punished them for bundling other components based upon complaints from companies in other markets. How is that emphasizing the browser?
What about Solitaire? Can that be bundled?
It is probably illegal for MS to bundle it, mind you that doesn't make it illegal for other people to bundle it, it just might mean you get different versions (better versions) based upon which OEM you buy your computer from.
Let me tell you something. I found out about Opera...
Your personal experiences, however, are not reflective of the general market. Most people never find out about Opera or install a new browser. The laws are designed to make Microsoft and Opera compete on even ground and OEMs have a decision as to which browser they should install based upon the merits of the browsers, rather than being forced to install IE because it is bundled with Windows and unremovable and it's nonstandard code has made the Web itself partly broken for all other browsers.
Back to Microsoft. If due to some court case, Microsoft is not allowed to bundle anything together, then soon nobody will be allowed to bundle anything together.
I strongly suggest rather than making a long Slashdot post, next time you spend the same amount of time reading up on antitrust law, what it is, how it works, and why the laws were enacted. Then, you won't have to make weird assumptions and worry that anyone bundling anything could be illegal. The law is fairly clear on what is legal to bundle and what isn't.
They no longer have a monopoly. Apple is nearly at 10% of the market. Linux has some share.
To qualify as a trust you don't have to have 100% of the market. 70% is a general guideline in most laws. You just have to have undue influence on the market. Aside from that, if you read the antitrust laws you'd know that Apple's OS X is not in the same market as Windows, as OEMs cannot purchase OS X.You're still considering things from the perspective of a user, not as a consumer in the OS market (like Dell or HP).
And there is no monopoly in the browser area either. With IE, Konquerer, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, shit the list goes on and on.
No one is claiming there is a monopoly on browsers and that's the point. MS is influencing the browser market using their monopoly on OS's.
...but I am no fan of this lawsuit.
Frankly, I don't think you understand either antitrust law or this particular lawsuit well enough to have an informed opinion.
I personally look forward to when TV's are no longer sold with remotes.
I don't watch much TV so maybe I missed out. Which company has a monopoly on TV's these days?
What about the apple ipod-itunes monopoly?
The EU commission has been investigating whether or not it is a monopoly for some time, despite not having a complaint from any company yet. They're still trying to decide if it is a monopoly, basically if cell phones are valid competitors for playing music (a point being mooted by the iphone and other convergence).
...how it is that the courts in America ruled that Microsoft was ok to keep bundling IE with Windows, while Microsoft's hopes in the EU when faced with the same issue is basically nil?
The thing is, the US courts didn't rule that it was ok for MS to bundle IE and Windows. They ruled it was criminal. Then, a new crop of politicians were elected and MS was one of the largest donors to their reelection funds. They replaced the people prosecuting MS and the punishment for MS's illegal bundling was no to be broken up so they couldn't do it again, but instead to not even be stopped from continuing the crime. Rather, the punishment was a very small fine and basically nothing else. This proved to companies around the world that the US court system is useless for getting judgements against rich corporations if you're not quite as rich. As a result American companies started complaining to the EU about other American companies rathe than bothering with the US courts. The EU, you see, was actually handing down the occasional useful verdict.
Since the US courts and several other courts have already convicted MS of this particular crime and most of the important facts have already been proven in the last case, MS has little or no chance of getting off scott free. The real question is if they will just end up fining them a pile of cash or if they will enforce a punishment that will do good in the long term, like forcing them to de-bundle or adhere to standards as decided by an independent watch group.
Does this mean that Google prefers gay people to Catholics, Blacks and Hispanics?
Your question is flawed as stated because it implies gays cannot be half black half hispanic Catholic homosexuals. Fighting for the legal freedoms of one group in no way implies you prefer that group. It's like claiming because the police stop a white guy from shooting a black guy they prefer blacks, when in reality they're just trying to stop a shooting. Google is trying to stop government discrimination against a minority and they'd probably do the same thing to stop government discrimination against other minorities. If there was a law passed banning people of asian descent from marrying people of other ethnicities and it was making it hard for Google to recruit asians to the area, they'd probably try to get that overturned too. Would that mean they prefer asians over mormons who think such unions are immoral? No, because Google might just as easily work to fight laws discriminating against mormons on some other issue.
"his actions are un-American and bigoted"
Some would make that claim about homosexuality. Others would (ironically) make that claim about about making that claim. What makes you such an expert?
Because America was founded upon the principal of individual freedom and religious freedom. You have to be pretty twisted in your thinking to be able to rationalize Proposition 8 as either since it is removing individual freedoms based upon some portion of the population's religious beliefs.
"Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking."
So, when you agree with the results of the democratic process, it's wrong for others to "take action", but when you disagree, it's ok to take to the streets?
Not at all. I believe in freedom and the constitution of the US and I'll fight to defend both. In this case, it is an attack on both, since this is a state passing laws that violate the US constitution by taking away freedoms specifically listed, such as the freedom from discrimination based upon sex. I'll fight to defend anyone's right to free speech as well as their equal right to legal institutions and protections under the constitution. Sorry, but a simple majority in a state cannot override the republic and the constitution. If they want to ban gay marriage they have to go through the proper motion and overturn the first amendment as well as the federal nondiscrimination laws, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed.
And somehow, he's the one that's causing the problem?!
He's the one fighting against personal freedom and freedom from government interference with religion. So, yeah, he's the one causing a problem, just as all the other people who fight against specific freedoms they dislike are causing problems. There's plenty of blame to go around, but in this instance, he's on the wrong side of the issue, the anti-freedom side.
You need to think about the role of government in your life and come to a consistent position before you do something drastic like that. We don't actually need another civil war. . .
My position is quite consistent and the fact that it does not line up with the opinions of either major party is evidence of that, rather than the converse. As for civil war, we may have never needed the first one, but we surely do need to fight, if not physically, to insure the freedom of all people regardless of whether or not we agree with the decisions they make or the ideals they hold. It is our duty as citizens as several founding fathers ordered us in no uncertain terms.
No, it's like this: "Hey everyone, your marriage is now only recognized as a civil union by the United States. However, it is still recognized as a marriage by your church, your friends, your family, and your God."
And when you travel to a foreign country that uses "marriage" as a legal term (most of them) and you only have proof of a civil union and are denied rights as a result? As soon as a law was passed regarding marriage it became a legal term and as such it is subject to the constitution in its entirety including nondiscrimination clauses. It's a better solution than trying to make up new terms and getting the rest of the world to change (as the EU has already tried).
I don't follow how the particular marital laws in a state would prohibit workers.
Who claims they do? It's not a matter of prohibiting workers, but making it harder for Google to hire and retain workers because of an unconstitutional law. Google is just claiming the effect upon their hiring gives them standing to sue and it is the unconstitutionality of the law that makes it illegal.
If people want to work there and are gay, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to forgo the term "married."
You may be sure, but it is the objective facts that matter, not your opinion.
So why bother?
Maybe they're tired of their top talent leaving and taking jobs with IT firms in Mass. Maybe they're doing this to try to stop some of those people from leaving. Maybe they're losing out when trying to recruit talent because people would rather move to other states or Europe because of anti-gay laws. Maybe none of these things have happened yet, but HR is concerned they will. Maybe Google is just using this as an excuse so they can get good press. Why do you care enough to post about it?
After this, will you fight for the rights of the minority who are not "wired" for monogamy so they can exercise their right to multiple partner marriages?
Personally, I have no problem with polygamy and don't see why it is illegal, but at least it is not so blatantly unconstitutional to ban polygamy. Polygamy involves multiple partners rather than dealing with the race, sex, or religion of the parties involved.I don't really care if people are "wired" for homosexuality or polygamy or if it is simply a lifestyle choice. I value freedom, and that means the freedom of people to choose to do whatever they bloody well want to so long as it is not taking away the freedoms of others. So sure, I'll fight for people's freedom to enter into polygamous relationships and still get married.
Homosexuals have the same right to marry (restricted to someone of the opposite sex) as any one else. Where is the discrimination? To claim that disallowing same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination is to assert that the grouping of the people is what's being discriminated against, not the individuals themselves.
If you want to put it that way, sure. It is illegal to legislatively group (or discriminate in the common parlance) based upon sex. As for the discrimination allow me to explain.
Bob and Jim both want to marry Sue. When the law said Bob could and Jim could not and the only legal difference between Bob and Jim was their race, that was unconstitutional because the constitution prohibits making legal discrimination based upon race. The fact that Jim could marry Nancy and Bob could not, in no way mitigated the fact that he could not marry Sue. Claiming that both Bob and Jim could marry anyone of their own race was likewise did not make any difference.
Now the argument is both Tom and Cindy want to marry Jennifer. It is legal for Tom to do so, but illegal for Jennifer and the only legal difference between the two of them is that Tom is one sex and Cindy is another. Do you see where this is going? Does it matter if Cindy can marry some other person? Nope, not legally. She's being banned from marrying Jennifer and that ban applies only to people of her sex. That's discrimination and every politician involved in the passing of Prop. 8 knew it was unconstitutional when they did it. You see they know it will be overturned, but in the mean time they want to delay things and make people angry so they can use that to get votes. Quite simply, if one person can marry someone and another can't marry that person there must be a criteria other than gender, religion, or race that legally differentiates the two people in question. If not, that's violating the US Constitution.
Just because he tolerates other lifestyles does not mean he should change his beliefs. As long as he's not endangering others, he has every right to express his opinion and his beliefs without being labeled as a bigot.
Paying people money to fund their attempt to pass unconstitutional laws to delay people from being able to exercise their fundamental rights is more than expressing an opinion, it is taking an action.
Is his personal opinion less important just because he's not a minority?
No, but his actions are un-American and bigoted. He's spending money to fight against freedom and to try to delay minorities from being able to exercise their rights. Saying you don't think homosexuals should get married is exercising your freedom of speech and I'll fight to protect his right to say it. Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking.
The courts are constitutional offices. A court can rule that a law is unconstitutional if the law contradicts protections and definitions in the constitution. Once an ammendment is passed, it is treated with the same weight and force as the constitution (by definition, the ammendment adds to the original constitution). On what grounds could the courts side for Google?
They made an amendment to the California state constitution that is blatantly against an amendment of the US constitution. Guess which one trumps the other?
What get's me is all the folks wanting to usurp the lawfully made decisions of the electorate of California. "We don't like this law, just because (supply a reason), so we'll throw it out, whether the voters who voted for it in the first place like it or not".
States rights don't trump the US constitution. Even if half the state of Florida votes to make it illegal for blacks to vote, the federal government won't let the law stand. Sorry, but states rights only apply to items not enumerated in the Constitution. It's a valid issue of states rights if the feds butt in when there is no constitutional amendment, but that is not the case here.