where does the return on investment mentality end? not everything that pays should be pursued. google is condonding the chinese government's tactics by entering into business with it. if google--the model of a successful, young, liberal company--overlooks oppressive government tactics in exchange for a share of the chinese market, who won't? google established itself as a company that fights the good fight. this is a betrayal of its own founding value. the fact that the betrayal pays money doesn't make it OK. it just makes it disgusting.
in effect, google has told the chinese that even the most liberal companies in the US--young, powerful, successful companies founded on liberal values--will condone china's oppressive and murderous tactics if the company can profit from the chinese market.
that's not "just business." when a company profits by cooperating with a government that stifles speech and every liberal principle that is the foundation of this country (and google's corporate philosophy), that's not "just business"--that's morally reprehensible.
think about what you're saying. would you tolerate google signing a contract with bin laden simply because it was a profitable move? i doubt it, because you've seen what bin laden did to this country. the chinese government hurts thousands of people. in what moral universe is it OK to overlook that?
...in the most disgusting, visible, blatant fashion. google is now an accomplices to one of the most evil governments in modern history, one that murders people, destroys families, and violates very noble principle that our country ostensibly stands for and protects. google just spat on the democratic values that the company exploited--clearly for economic reasons rather than out of ideological conviction--to establish good will among consumers. this is evidence that power just creates hunger for more power. i sincerely hope there is a huge outcry against this and that people stop using google in protest. this is more disgusting than alito's appointment. it is egregious and inexcusable.
on the other hand, if you believe that that there are constitutional issues w/ the copyright act, and you have a chance to raise the issue before the supreme court, you'd be a fool to stay silent on the topic.
don't lose all hope. a similar issue may come up in another circuit, and that panel of judges can rule differently, thus creating a circuit split, and, in the least, create a jurisdiction in which this sort of activity is OK, in total or in part. a circuit split may also induce supreme court review, though that isnt likely to produce a result favorable.
Slashdot Mirror
nicely done.
where does the return on investment mentality end? not everything that pays should be pursued. google is condonding the chinese government's tactics by entering into business with it. if google--the model of a successful, young, liberal company--overlooks oppressive government tactics in exchange for a share of the chinese market, who won't? google established itself as a company that fights the good fight. this is a betrayal of its own founding value. the fact that the betrayal pays money doesn't make it OK. it just makes it disgusting.
in effect, google has told the chinese that even the most liberal companies in the US--young, powerful, successful companies founded on liberal values--will condone china's oppressive and murderous tactics if the company can profit from the chinese market.
that's not "just business." when a company profits by cooperating with a government that stifles speech and every liberal principle that is the foundation of this country (and google's corporate philosophy), that's not "just business"--that's morally reprehensible.
think about what you're saying. would you tolerate google signing a contract with bin laden simply because it was a profitable move? i doubt it, because you've seen what bin laden did to this country. the chinese government hurts thousands of people. in what moral universe is it OK to overlook that?
...in the most disgusting, visible, blatant fashion. google is now an accomplices to one of the most evil governments in modern history, one that murders people, destroys families, and violates very noble principle that our country ostensibly stands for and protects. google just spat on the democratic values that the company exploited--clearly for economic reasons rather than out of ideological conviction--to establish good will among consumers. this is evidence that power just creates hunger for more power. i sincerely hope there is a huge outcry against this and that people stop using google in protest. this is more disgusting than alito's appointment. it is egregious and inexcusable.
i'm talking about the entire strategy, not just oral argument.
on the other hand, if you believe that that there are constitutional issues w/ the copyright act, and you have a chance to raise the issue before the supreme court, you'd be a fool to stay silent on the topic.
don't lose all hope. a similar issue may come up in another circuit, and that panel of judges can rule differently, thus creating a circuit split, and, in the least, create a jurisdiction in which this sort of activity is OK, in total or in part. a circuit split may also induce supreme court review, though that isnt likely to produce a result favorable.