Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 07:23 AM EDT

For current events, legal filings and Caldera® collapses.



Please make links clickable.

Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>



---

See my bio for copyright details re: this post.

Darl McBride, show your evidence! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 07:24 AM EDT

If required.



---

See my bio for copyright details re: this post.

Darl McBride, show your evidence! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 07:42 AM EDT

How can a decent all American corporation like McDonalds fairly complete for

the poorest of customers when there are soup kitchens offering its primary

service to them for free! This has to be stopped! And what about those awful

homeless shelters? Are there not renters loosing business? And what of city

water and private wells? Is there not water to be bottled and resold to the

locals? They cannot afford it, you say? How dare they get these services for

free, lower cost, or by helping each other! Are there no longer any work

houses for the poor and their children? Coal mines to be dug? Child labor to

be bought and sold? Yatchs to be buttlerd and staffed? Wealthy to be body

servented?



Ebenezier



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jadeclaw on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 07:46 AM EDT

But seriously, I'm 100% sure, that this lawsuit will be kicked out of court.

Why? We have laws here in Europe governing the freedom to move and go everywhere

plus competition laws plus numerous civil rights as well.

These laws make it a non-starter from the beginning.

And I'm sure, there are some french laws too, regarding this issue.

I think, this will backfire seriously for that bus-company...



Jadeclaw





---



Best regards

Jadeclaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 07:47 AM EDT

Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet Mission



A Russian woman is suing NASA because they shot the Deep Impact probe at the

Tempel 1 comet. According to her, the damage done to the comet "would

deform her horoscope."



I guess it's logical if you think about it. If the position or movement of

celestial objects affects your future, then changing their position the wrong

way will negatively change your future.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jog on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 08:02 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 08:17 AM EDT

This silliness reminds me of an e.e.cummings poem:



when serpents bargain for the right to squirm

and the sun strikes to gain a living wage-

when thorns regard their roses with alarm

and rainbows are insured against old age



when every thrush may sing no new moon in

if all screech-owls have not okayed his voice

-and any wave signs on the dotted line

or else an ocean is compelled to close



when the oak begs permission of the birch

to make an acorn-valleys accuse their

mountains of having altitude-and march

denounces april as a saboteur



then we'll believe in that incredible

unanimal mankind(and not until) [ Reply to This | # ]



Sour Grapes - Authored by: Observer on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:36 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 08:36 AM EDT

The Common Denominator - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, July 18 2005 @ 11:18 AM EDT

Authored by: Graves on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 08:38 AM EDT

Reminds me of the gas station owner in the UK who put his prices up during a

gasoline strike a few years ago. People where forced to queue for hours to get

petrol that was often rationed to a few gallons per customer. One bright spark

had the idea of jacking his price up at the same time to well over $10/gallon

(it's normally about $6 - $7 per UK gallon).



News spread of his scam in the national newspapers and people boycotted his gas

station, even after he put his prices back down after the strike ended.



He went out of business a few weeks later. Bwuuuuuhahahahaha!!!!



You get what you deserve.



</Graves> [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 08:45 AM EDT

I can't say this is as bad, but it's pretty bad.



My sister's husband, his little brother is gay and has a lifeguard for a

boyfriend. He and the beach he worked at got sued by a guy he had saved, for a

couple of broken ribs caused by chest compressions while getting CPR. When the

guy recovered enough, he saw this as a possible cash grab and looked into suing

my bother-in-law's younger brother's boyfriend for pain and suffering. As it

turned out, for acts like that, you can't be held liable for damages especially

if they were unavoidable and performed by someone who knows what they're doing,

such as a trained and licensed lifeguard.



But duing the investigation, the guy who was suing found out the guy who saved

him was gay. His lawyer called the lifeguard's lawyer and they set up a

meeting. During the meeting, and mind you, almost 11 weeks had passed since the

rescue without any other issues other than the broken ribs being brought up, the

guy starts accusing the lifeguard of kissing him with tongue, while getting

mouth to mouth. Before he found out he was gay, not a word or an implication

that anything such as this happened, but after he found out...



The company the lifeguard worked for, who also supplied his lawyer settled out

of court and made sealing the case as part of the settlement with the injured

man to avoid a public battle over a gay lifeguard. He also got sidemoted to a

job where he hardly ever watches over swimmers just in case, even tho they

repeatedly told him they knew he didn't do anything wrong. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:08 AM EDT

Stupid lawsuits need to be divided into professional and amateur divisions.



bkd [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:17 AM EDT

"Depuis plusieurs années, Schiocchet exploite une ligne de bus dédiée au

transport transfrontalier de femmes de ménage, pour la plupart employées par la

société Onet-Luxembourg."



The bus line is not available to tourists - it's purely a worker transport ...

but it's still a STUPID, and greedy, move. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:37 AM EDT

This from Yale's Lawmeme, quoting Jamie Kellner of Turner Broadcasting: "[Ad skips are] theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming." http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=artic le&sid=198 Then, of course, there's the auto companies suing Greyhound (or vice versa), publishers suing over libraries, etc. But it doesn't top PJ, though, since there's no reference to an actual lawsuit over skipping commercials. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:37 AM EDT

I guess he noted from your previous comment on this that "pro persona"

is a Harry Potterism.



I have no idea what he stuffed up this time, but I'll take a wild (and

uneducated) guess that he failed to specify what damages that he's *currently*

suffering due to the alleged price fixing. I doubt that claiming that he might

at some future date suffer injury *if* he ever wanted to compete is sufficient.



I'm sure that I won't have to wait long for IBM and/or Novell to let me know if

I guessed right. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bobyrne on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:50 AM EDT

That is actually going to be a key question in this case.



If the owners of the cars or the drivers are making a profit in transporting

their colleagues to work then it is, in effect, a transport service similar to a

hackney or taxi service. You cannot operate such a service without a license. It

appears this bus company is claiming an exclusive license for the route.



If anyone in the carpool is making a profit the company can reasonably claim:

- The carpool is a commercial transport service operating without a license.

- The carpool is operating in contravention of the company's exclusive license

for the route.



Now I don't know what sort of penalties French or Belgian law provides for these

transgressions, but I would be surprised if it extended to confiscation of the

vehicles.



Of course if no-one is making a profit (if the costs are simply being shared)

then this argument falls and the suit really should be thrown out at the

earliest opportunity.



(I considered participating in a carpool for a while, and found out that in

order to be absolutely safe from accusations of operating a taxi without a

license I would have to keep a logbook of all journeys, receipts for all fuel

purchases, and invoices / receipts for everything paid by the other members of

the carpool towards the cost of the fuel).



Brian.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: grw on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT

Wow! As a pedestrian, cyclist, transit user who, in my 50 something years, has

never owned a car and who considers car drivers to be anti-environmental

terrorists, even I consider this an extreme way to promote transit use over the

car. Maybe they could sue the government for building roads for the car drivers

to drive on! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 10:11 AM EDT

This would easily fit the category of forcing people to do business with you. If we can research this case, pull up as many of the facts (as filed with the court) as possible, perhaps we can bring this to as many of our elected represetatives as possible as an example of the damage a Monopoly can cause. Just a thought! RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 10:36 AM EDT

"The first clue should have been a transit company telling its riders,

women at that, they were not allowed to talk for 40 minutes. That is

inhuman."



Knowing my wife and her mother - I'd say impossible. General anaesthetic

couldn't keep my mother-in-law quiet - and believe me we tried ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT

This was another candidate for Dumbest Lawsuit.



Michael J. Zwebner is the CEO of Universal Communications Systems Inc.

(BB:UCSY), a publicly-traded penny stock corporation based in Miami. The stock

has not done well, to put it mildly, and the company's P.R. claims have been

widely viewed as, well, at least a bit exaggerated. The stock is discussed on

the Lycos-owned web site Raging Bull.



Zwebner's corporate strategy seems to be to sue people who say bad things about

him. (This habit goes back to some previous companies he was at.) One such

person on Raging Bull used the screen name "wolfblitzzer0". Zwebner

then filed suit against CNN and its reporter Wolf Blitzer, on grounds that they

did not force the person using that screen name to shut up!



(Yes, it was thrown out. Zwebner is, however, still litigating like crazy.

It's kind of fun to watch.)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 10:58 AM EDT

That's stupid, putting 2M euro into this lawsuit. Wouldn't everything be all

right if they would just let it be? Regardless of what happens, the transit

company will surely lose some money -- I highly doubt that the fine and

confiscation will make up the amount of money they put into this. This is so

not putting money where their mouth is...



Suppose the 10 women AND the cleaning company can sue the transit company for

emotional damage, inconvenience, etc. and keep them busy. While they're at it,

they can organize a boycott. Nobody likes bullies, right? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: RPN on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 11:06 AM EDT

Stupid laws and the faintest of loopholes get abused and they can have very real

consequences that extend way beyond the people directly involved in the case.

This is why cases like those we follow here really matter. Amazingly stupid

cases do sometimes win, all have very real negative consequences for the

defendants. They can hold back, even largely destroy entire sectors of the

economy; I am led to believe from a general curiosity about aircraft that the

American light aircraft industry provides a salutory lesson and I'm sure others

can point to other examples.



I feel very sorry for these women. Two years being chased by such an

unscrupulous company with all the attendant expenses, especially on a cleaners

salary, is no joke, even if they win in the end. And it is either an incredibly

stupid or an incredibly unscrupulous company to have taken it as far as the

tribunal let alone pursuing it to a higher court. I don't know whether to be sad

at such lack of sense and decency or furious at such pigheaded stupidity.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 11:40 AM EDT

When did business get so mean? And so stupid? It's not business that's mean and stupid, PJ. Greed is mean and stupid. There just happen to be greedy people in business. And it's not really a recent phenomenon. I offer, for example, Ebeneezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchet. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ted Powell on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT

By way of contrast, TransLink, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, offers a program intended to be more attractive than carpooling. Participation in the Employer Pass program allows companies to offer cost-reduced annual transit passes to their staff when 25 or more employees are enrolled into the program. The photo ID transit passes are issued to employees through the convenience of payroll deduction. The pass entitles the bearer to travel on any bus or Community Shuttle operated by a TransLink subsidiary or contractor (except HandyDART), SkyTrain and SeaBus. Passes for West Coast Express are also available. The beauty of it is that everbody gets to travel at their own time, and go their own way, with no need for coordination other than getting people to sign up for the program. ---

GPL code ... It's the difference between owning your own home and just renting. --PJ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 11:58 AM EDT

"...for 100% it [the capital] stamps its foot on all human laws and for

300% there is no crime not risked even at the threat of the gallows." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 12:12 PM EDT

Surely there must be something illegal in what that company is doing to those

women. With this publicity I really hope some bigtime lawyer picks up on their

cause and comes up with an awesome countersuit.



It's be great poetic justice if the end result is that they women win the

vehicles of the transportation company in a countersuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:04 PM EDT

"My hat is off to their lawyers, because they are almost certainly working

for less than they could from another client."



It's a transit company. Therefore by definition their lawyers are bottom of the

barrel who can't find work anywhere else.



That's obvious since they came up with this lawsuit.



I remember someone once asking where do the lawyers go who were at the BOTTOM of

their class. Then he attended a Public Utilities Commission hearing in

Sacramento - and found them. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:06 PM EDT

That reminds me. I've heard SCO is offering its partners a free copy of their new software offering Personally, I'm waiting until they distribute it in boxes of Cracker Jacks. This in spite of the fact that MOG has assured us -- with her usual flare for mathematics -- that SCO's Unix is (at $599 a pop) "cheaper than Linux". ---

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: BobDowling on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:10 PM EDT

Is anyone interested in the AMD vs. Intel antitrust case? If there's a thread elsewhere in Groklaw point me to it, please. Amd's claims are quite lengthy and, given the number of companies they claim Intel has “got at” I suspect there will be another mountain of discovery. There is also a claim of nobbling with Intel's compilers. This could lead to some fun expert testimony as the two sides try to lead a jury through optimised compiler output. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:23 PM EDT

Hmmm, isn't that exactly the mindset Steve Ballmer reveals at so many of his infamous keynotes? "If you don't buy our great product, you might get sued, because, you know, the "other" OS violates hundreds of patents. I won't tell you who will sue (might be us), but if you buy our software, no one will dare dragging you into court." "And mind you, all PCs really *must* have our great OS preloaded, because on PCs without or another OS, pirated copies of our superior product will be installed. In the end, offering better and cheaper alternatives is *PIRACY*." Not much different from that French compnay ... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:31 PM EDT

Somebody high up in the bus company knows one or more of the women personally

and is using this to get back at her or them.



x-wife or maybe a woman who married an x-husband as an example.



Nobody does something this stupid or vindictive to someone else with business in

mind. Gotta have more stuff under the radar.



This reeks of the logic my x-wife would have done if she had the means. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:53 PM EDT

Hey, guys. Check out this phony funny from Humorix: SCO's latest and greatest product- its all new and improved version 4.0 of its flagship litigation product, SCO v. IBM. Plus lots of other Software Satire. Enjoy! ---

What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: qitaana on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 01:53 PM EDT

My mother was the show secretary for a large poultry show for ten years or so.

At these shows, it was not unusual for people to buy and sell birds... in fact,

there was a sale area where people could display birds for sale that weren't

even entered in the show.



One year, a known Pain In The Nether Regions put several birds up for sale.

They were labelled "pet quality", meaning that they weren't really

good enough to show and, being bantams, you weren't going to get much by way of

eggs or meat from them either. Price on the pet birds was $5 each, and one was

sold to a little girl who wasn't quite ready to raise show birds yet. $5 cash

changes hand, little girl goes home with chicken.



Imagine my mother's surprise, a month or two later, when she's served a subpoena

to appear at small claims court. It seems the Pain In Rear had inadvertently

put one of her show birds in the pet-quality sale area, and the little girl had

bought a $25-$30 chicken for $5. PIR is now suing in court for the difference.



So... PIR has paid the filing fee ($25 at the time, I think...), had papers

served on the little girls family and on my mother as show secretary (another

fee), etc., all in hopes of getting an additional $20.



My mother did go to court, and was questioned a bit by the judge about

"show quality" versus "pet quality", the usual pricing of

birds, and how transactions usually take place. Mother reported that the judge

was clearly trying very hard not to laugh.



Needless to say, PIR's case was dismissed... her putting a show bird in the pet

sale area was not the fault of the defendant. I suppose if she had prevailed,

she would have asked to tack filing costs on to the award. However, between

filing fees and service fees and such, she would have been down at least $20

even if she had won but not gotten her costs back.



*rolls eyes*



Mother is now out of the poultry-show-secretarying business, but she still loves

to tell about getting subpoenaed as a witness to the sale of a chicken. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 02:11 PM EDT

"The first clue should have been a transit company telling its riders,

women at that, they were not allowed to talk for 40 minutes."



Explain to me the 'women at that' quote above. Do women deserve more

consideration than men?



Equality seems to be the goal, and if it is then perhaps putting one sex, either

of them, on a pedestal is frustrating that goal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 03:19 PM EDT

There is a site designated to this kind of lawsuit, http://www.stellaawards.com/ Take a look at last years winners at http://www.stellaawards.com/2004.ht ml [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Bas Burger on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 04:49 PM EDT

I think these people deserve a good session bend over someone's knee...



Where is this world going to?



Bas.



---

DIRECTUS ELATUS PERTINAX [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 05:57 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 06:59 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT

Don't know if it can compete, but I have mention the

lawsuit mentioned yesterday(?) in the National Post

(Canada). The parents of the only girl on a boy's hockey

team (yes, past lawsuits forced them to allow girls onto

boys hockey teams) are suing for discrimination because

she is forced to change in a separate change room!!!

Apparently, she wants to change with the boys!



They want their daughter to be the only girl in a room

full of teenage male hockey players while all are getting

changed?!? I think Child Services should investigate the

parents for endangering their daughter's safety! Or at

least check out their sanity.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: marbux on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT

The BBC are in hot water with the record labels for offering free downloads of the BBC orchestra performing classical music. And here we thought free software was bad. ---

Retired lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT

He's probably having a good laugh at the "pro persona"

ridicule from the Latin experts here at Groklaw.



http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/Aopc/AnnualReport/2002/31gloss.pdf





ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS



pro se (pro see) An individual who represents

himself/herself in court. Also called in

propria persona or pro persona.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 12 2005 @ 11:55 PM EDT

The sad, undeniable truth is: the ladies are going to lose time and money to

"defend" themselves against blatant fraud.



A VERY few in the biz have shown themselves to be honest and respectable.

Unfortunately, like Lot, they are not enough to make saving the "town"

(Gomorrah "legal system", with lawyers, judges, and senators/reps

little more than corporate harlots) worth saving. It is hopelessly corrupt.



Some say the only thing saving us from anarchy is the courts. What do we do

when, as now, the courts are the thugs? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gregbillock on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 02:15 AM EDT

Groklawyers,



Here's my odd legal problem. I have an open source project I've worked on for

about 5-6 years. I recently got an angry email from a lawyer who apparently just

registered the name I've been using with the USPTO and now wants me to change

it. What should I do? I told him trademarks are earned, and as the junior user

they can't take my right to use the name, registered or not. I haven't heard

back. Do I need to take some sort of preemptive action and file an opposition

with the USPTO? Let it drop?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 04:45 AM EDT

I read the article in the 'Liberation' and there one of the woman mentions that

they were just the first and many followed. "Today only 12 persons take the

bus. Before we were with 80."



So the company is losing their profit because they deliver bad service (one stop

was removed, another placed in a location "where it is convenient for

nobody" and often the 9:30 bus arrives at 10:30. Complains have been met

with bullying.



Now the company has calculated the loss (not hard: price of the serverice times

68 (nr of customers lost)) and present the 'instigators' the bill... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 05:10 AM EDT

PJ: "He still is missing a vital piece, but far be it from me to explain it

to him. He'd just file to amend again, so if you figure out what he didn't get

right, don't tell him please."



What are the odds on Wallace suing PJ for: not telling him what is wrong with

his case; inciting others not to tell him; and (by implication) telling her own

lawyers so that they can take unconstitutional advantage of the poor lone

Wallace's lack of legal resources.



There's got to be an Nth Amendment somewhere that makes all that illegal... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 06:24 AM EDT

Sorry I can't say much, but I am a doctor, and I have just

learned that I am named in a suit on behalf of a patient I

never met, examined, diagnosed, or treated, who got sick

and died in a hospital in another part of the state. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 06:58 AM EDT

Obviously he is taking money out of some lawyers pocket by representing himself.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT

Reminds me of the time my boss was sued... he was a passenger in someone else's

van. Van gets hit in the side by someone who ran a stop sign at an intersection.

The driver of the offending vehicle sued (in addition to the driver of the van)

my boss for damaging their vehicle (and he wasn't even driving, much less

responsible for the accident). Fortunately, it took about two minutes for the

judge to throw the suit out of court.





---

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports

Night" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 03:06 PM EDT

My next computer will be AMD, but not because of any law suite. I am replacing

my old dual 800MHz Pentium III processor workstation with a dual processor, dual

core system using AMD Opteron 265 or 270 processors. These processors are much

better then anything Intel offers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2005 @ 03:12 PM EDT

I wonder if and how these copys of Legend will be reported in the quarterly

reports of the resellers. On one hand they where given free of charge, on the

other hand the reseller can make money with them. How do you pay taxes for the

money you earn from this unusual kind of transaction? Your margin would equal

the price, therefor raising your taxes, right?



And what can we expect from SCO in respect to the "Number of copies

sold" column? Will they count every copy they gave away as "sold"

since the reseller *could* sell it? Or will they claim losses with the SEC

because they gave those copies away? My guess: they will do BOTH! ;-)



Linux_Inside [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 12:19 PM EDT

This is really not all that unlike the theory under which telecoms (like SBC)

want municipalities and local groups enjoined against providing wireless

networking services independently. They say that it's "unfair

competition."



The real story is that the competition in the case of the telecoms, as in the

case of the carpooling women, is not from another corporation, but from none

other than the customers! (In the case of telecoms, customers are the ones who

are voting for the controllers of the municipal budgets and paying the taxes

that support municipal solutions.)



It's obvious how ludicrous the French lawsuit is; however, there's really no

difference between that theory and the one proposed by the telecoms. If everyone

can see the one for what it is, why not the other?



If the telecoms are granted what they are asking, then as a culture we in

America are no less silly than this French transit company. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 17 2005 @ 09:20 AM EDT