Not having time to read the complaint right now (I'm working on a contract), they are probably pleading at least some tortious interference with business advantage. That tort does have as a defense "competitive privilege."
If the allegations are that Intel engaged in unfair competition (often found as pricing some things below cost to compete and making it up on other things as Wal-Mart has been accused in the past) then that does not have the defense of competition. It is per se illegal if you're doing it for the purpose of hurting someone else's business (which is different from loss-leaders which are intended to fool the consumer and not screw your competitors).
My guess is that Intel will settle this at some point for cash to avoid bad precedent (as Wal-Mart has done from time to time). If they fight it, it will be interesting to see how the trial plays out.
Apple is well within the rule from Sony and outside the new rule announced in Grokster yesterday. Someone would have to prove that Apple is inducing people to violate copyright and with the iTunes service being a pay service, It seems like Apple would have a heck of an affirmative defense to that one. Any suit against Apple on this is likely to get bounced on a 12(b)(6) or on summary judgment.
Interesting. So in your theoretical world they will all still be using Word (and thus likely Windows). Okay, then that will just destroy Microsoft's business, you're right.
Three points:
1. Everyone who disagrees with you is not stupid, and every argument with which you disagree is not stupid either.
2. You're looking, I think, at only hardware costs. I don't know your experience, but trust me when I tell you getting all of the people you're talking about to adopt some new procedure is expensive, disruptive and time-consuming no matter how small the change might be.
3. Is there a point to this discussion for you? All you seem to want to do is demonstrate that you're smarter than I am because you can assert that my arguments are stupid and thereby imply that I am. I don't have time to respond to that, so if you'd actually like to discuss this, that's fine, if not, adios.
4.25 lines of response, 1.25 in reply to the joke. I did, in fact, address your argument, but now my argument is "stupid."
None of this addresses *MY* original point: that the per capita calculations re: Norway are irrelevant. You've spent time calling me an idiot and calling my argument stupid, yet you've not yet refuted my argument which is this simple thesis: the per capita income of Norway is irrelevant in assessing the significance of this announcement.
Is the domino effect you describe possible? Certainly. Is it likely? I don't think so because of the costs involved in converting. If the costs of not converting become larger than the costs of converting, then the change makes sense. I do not believe that is the case, and I don't believe that this announcement, or carrying it into effect will alter that calculus. If that's too stupid, or idiotic, or Microsoft-like for you, I've done all I can and you'll just have to be happy believing you've won (what, I'm not sure...).
Two ad hominem arguments in one; that's sweet. I do not work for Microsoft, nor am I an idiot. I am sorry to disappoint you. The simple fact is that Norway is still irrelevant in this context. It makes perfect sense for a business not to want to lose any business and yet still not be seriously harmed by losing some. A business is always happy to deny someone else market penetration, but doesn't necessarily lose value when it does. Pies can be made bigger, after all. Besides, perhaps Norway can make such a switch. But the U.S. Government? Hell, any large business? The costs involved are ridiculously enormous.
There's a problem with all of these per capita comparisons: they are irrelevant. If you have a country with 100,000,000 people and a per capita income of 20,000 and you have another country with 20,000,000 with per capita income of 100,000 and what you are out to do is move more units, the first country is more important to you (unless your item is very expensive). Since windows boxes are fairly ubiquitous now, the number of units sold and not how rich each individual buyer is becomes more important. In the number of units game, Norway *is* irrelevant. I'll leave to others whether the actual change is good or bad because I have no opinion.
You're not being forced to to anything. This ruling prevents you from forcing the cable company to provide someone else's service. You are always free to contract with someone else. The only people screwed here are the people at telephone companies who are forced to offer others' services across their own equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
Not having time to read the complaint right now (I'm working on a contract), they are probably pleading at least some tortious interference with business advantage. That tort does have as a defense "competitive privilege." If the allegations are that Intel engaged in unfair competition (often found as pricing some things below cost to compete and making it up on other things as Wal-Mart has been accused in the past) then that does not have the defense of competition. It is per se illegal if you're doing it for the purpose of hurting someone else's business (which is different from loss-leaders which are intended to fool the consumer and not screw your competitors). My guess is that Intel will settle this at some point for cash to avoid bad precedent (as Wal-Mart has done from time to time). If they fight it, it will be interesting to see how the trial plays out.
Apple is well within the rule from Sony and outside the new rule announced in Grokster yesterday. Someone would have to prove that Apple is inducing people to violate copyright and with the iTunes service being a pay service, It seems like Apple would have a heck of an affirmative defense to that one. Any suit against Apple on this is likely to get bounced on a 12(b)(6) or on summary judgment.
Interesting. So in your theoretical world they will all still be using Word (and thus likely Windows). Okay, then that will just destroy Microsoft's business, you're right. Three points: 1. Everyone who disagrees with you is not stupid, and every argument with which you disagree is not stupid either. 2. You're looking, I think, at only hardware costs. I don't know your experience, but trust me when I tell you getting all of the people you're talking about to adopt some new procedure is expensive, disruptive and time-consuming no matter how small the change might be. 3. Is there a point to this discussion for you? All you seem to want to do is demonstrate that you're smarter than I am because you can assert that my arguments are stupid and thereby imply that I am. I don't have time to respond to that, so if you'd actually like to discuss this, that's fine, if not, adios.
4.25 lines of response, 1.25 in reply to the joke. I did, in fact, address your argument, but now my argument is "stupid."
None of this addresses *MY* original point: that the per capita calculations re: Norway are irrelevant. You've spent time calling me an idiot and calling my argument stupid, yet you've not yet refuted my argument which is this simple thesis: the per capita income of Norway is irrelevant in assessing the significance of this announcement.
Is the domino effect you describe possible? Certainly. Is it likely? I don't think so because of the costs involved in converting. If the costs of not converting become larger than the costs of converting, then the change makes sense. I do not believe that is the case, and I don't believe that this announcement, or carrying it into effect will alter that calculus. If that's too stupid, or idiotic, or Microsoft-like for you, I've done all I can and you'll just have to be happy believing you've won (what, I'm not sure...).
Two ad hominem arguments in one; that's sweet. I do not work for Microsoft, nor am I an idiot. I am sorry to disappoint you. The simple fact is that Norway is still irrelevant in this context. It makes perfect sense for a business not to want to lose any business and yet still not be seriously harmed by losing some. A business is always happy to deny someone else market penetration, but doesn't necessarily lose value when it does. Pies can be made bigger, after all. Besides, perhaps Norway can make such a switch. But the U.S. Government? Hell, any large business? The costs involved are ridiculously enormous.
There's a problem with all of these per capita comparisons: they are irrelevant. If you have a country with 100,000,000 people and a per capita income of 20,000 and you have another country with 20,000,000 with per capita income of 100,000 and what you are out to do is move more units, the first country is more important to you (unless your item is very expensive). Since windows boxes are fairly ubiquitous now, the number of units sold and not how rich each individual buyer is becomes more important. In the number of units game, Norway *is* irrelevant. I'll leave to others whether the actual change is good or bad because I have no opinion.
You're not being forced to to anything. This ruling prevents you from forcing the cable company to provide someone else's service. You are always free to contract with someone else. The only people screwed here are the people at telephone companies who are forced to offer others' services across their own equipment.