Actually, Universal Tube was around a lot longer.
I actually heard the owner of Universal Tube on NPR about 2-3 weeks ago, sounded like a nice guy. He'd been trying to get in touch with YouTube for a while, presumably to set up some kind of arrangement that would handle their volume problems and get their customers to them while getting people looking for YouTube to the correct spot, and with the Google merger, he specifically said "I just want to get in touch with the people at Google, I think we can come to an arrangement we both like."
And as to the comment "there's no such thing as bad publicity", think about this: when you own a small business and you can't keep your site up due to volume problems, you lose customers. That hurts, and can hurt a whole lot; in some cases, it's enough to drive a company under. It's not like YouTube is hurting financially now that it falls into Google's deep pockets.
I'd assume this lawsuit was filed since they had been unsuccessful directly contacting Google/YouTube execs. It's a way to get their attention - I highly doubt it will make it to court.
Unfortunately in this case, we're talking about a U.S. District Court Judge, which is a Presidential appointee. The judge in this case is Charles Kocoras (from TFA); couldn't find a whole lot on him, other than that he was appointed in 1980, became chief judge in 2002, and he recently won the Chicago Bar Association's "Justice John Paul Stevens Award". So, you can't vote him out, but Beryllium is right; pay attention to local judges, they do make a difference! Check out HALT (www.halt.org) for more information on judges and judicial reform.
Unfortunately, liability issues have held this back for a long time. No saw manufacturers wanted to have the technology for fear they would be sued if it didn't work. Just another example of a messed up tort system and how society suffers for it...
While what you are saying is true on a basic level, the net impact on your funds is close to zero. The total risk/reward for any one stock, of the 500, when equally weighted, is insignificant. In fact, it may actually reduce risk by diversifying the S&P more. There are plenty of 'risky' stocks in the S&P 500, but it gains it's stability from having such a breadth of stocks that the maximum impact of one volatile stock is muted. If equally weighted, each company represents 0.2% of the portfolio. In other words, even if Google went bankrupt (anyone want to place bets on the odds of that happening?), the total impact on your portfolio would be a 0.2% drop. Now, if Google DID go bankrupt, the impact on the S&P would be much more severe, but that's more due to the related companies and the negative impact a major bankruptcy like that would have on the economy as a whole, and investor attitudes in particular.
I for one welcome it - it's about time, their market capitalization, revenues, and balance sheet have placed them in the top 500 companies in the US pretty much since they went public.
While I'm all for reforming the legal code, and I agree wholeheartedly that laws need to be relegated to one topic and simple, I don't think we necessarily have to lose. Sure, courts are expensive, and yes, that is a problem in our society. However, there are lots of alternatives to lawsuits, which used to be effectively used in our society, although they seem forgotten these days...what about a boycott? How many of us would be willing to say to Sony, the vast megacorp that it is, that we won't buy ANY of their products, be it music, components, computers, PSP, etc? It's not convenient, but if we really want control over what companies do, we need to be able to cut back our own overconsumption and learn to live without occasionally, so those big megacorps we all rail against, really are responsive. After all, the customer is always right, correct? At least our dollars are...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Universal Tube was around a lot longer. I actually heard the owner of Universal Tube on NPR about 2-3 weeks ago, sounded like a nice guy. He'd been trying to get in touch with YouTube for a while, presumably to set up some kind of arrangement that would handle their volume problems and get their customers to them while getting people looking for YouTube to the correct spot, and with the Google merger, he specifically said "I just want to get in touch with the people at Google, I think we can come to an arrangement we both like." And as to the comment "there's no such thing as bad publicity", think about this: when you own a small business and you can't keep your site up due to volume problems, you lose customers. That hurts, and can hurt a whole lot; in some cases, it's enough to drive a company under. It's not like YouTube is hurting financially now that it falls into Google's deep pockets. I'd assume this lawsuit was filed since they had been unsuccessful directly contacting Google/YouTube execs. It's a way to get their attention - I highly doubt it will make it to court.
Unfortunately in this case, we're talking about a U.S. District Court Judge, which is a Presidential appointee. The judge in this case is Charles Kocoras (from TFA); couldn't find a whole lot on him, other than that he was appointed in 1980, became chief judge in 2002, and he recently won the Chicago Bar Association's "Justice John Paul Stevens Award". So, you can't vote him out, but Beryllium is right; pay attention to local judges, they do make a difference! Check out HALT (www.halt.org) for more information on judges and judicial reform.
Unfortunately, liability issues have held this back for a long time. No saw manufacturers wanted to have the technology for fear they would be sued if it didn't work. Just another example of a messed up tort system and how society suffers for it...
While what you are saying is true on a basic level, the net impact on your funds is close to zero. The total risk/reward for any one stock, of the 500, when equally weighted, is insignificant. In fact, it may actually reduce risk by diversifying the S&P more. There are plenty of 'risky' stocks in the S&P 500, but it gains it's stability from having such a breadth of stocks that the maximum impact of one volatile stock is muted. If equally weighted, each company represents 0.2% of the portfolio. In other words, even if Google went bankrupt (anyone want to place bets on the odds of that happening?), the total impact on your portfolio would be a 0.2% drop. Now, if Google DID go bankrupt, the impact on the S&P would be much more severe, but that's more due to the related companies and the negative impact a major bankruptcy like that would have on the economy as a whole, and investor attitudes in particular. I for one welcome it - it's about time, their market capitalization, revenues, and balance sheet have placed them in the top 500 companies in the US pretty much since they went public.
While I'm all for reforming the legal code, and I agree wholeheartedly that laws need to be relegated to one topic and simple, I don't think we necessarily have to lose. Sure, courts are expensive, and yes, that is a problem in our society. However, there are lots of alternatives to lawsuits, which used to be effectively used in our society, although they seem forgotten these days...what about a boycott? How many of us would be willing to say to Sony, the vast megacorp that it is, that we won't buy ANY of their products, be it music, components, computers, PSP, etc? It's not convenient, but if we really want control over what companies do, we need to be able to cut back our own overconsumption and learn to live without occasionally, so those big megacorps we all rail against, really are responsive. After all, the customer is always right, correct? At least our dollars are...