Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Monday, 16 July 2012

It takes two to tango

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but I have to wonder why it's always business that gets the stick.

Whenever we get a blatant case of corporatism, where government is peddling its influence or using its monopoly on violence on behalf of a specific business, it's always "Oh, what a nasty, corrupt company" and never "what a nasty, corrupt state".

At the moment, we're similarly faced with McDonalds, who have paid a metric fucktonne of money to sponsor the Olympics, insisting on something that was in their contract being honoured. No-one is as outraged at the naked profiteering that the Olympics has become as they are at someone who paid a lot of money trying to recoup it legally.

I don't agree with the laws, I don't agree with all the crap that's come with the Olympics, but it's funny how the rule of law and morality have become divorced.

No-one really objects to the rule of law being applied to murder, theft, assault, etc. But it's almost as though the law has taken on a life of its own and has become divorced from being a clear codification of reasonable morals and ethics and turned into a Hydra of arcane, hair-splitting nonsense that drains us of our reason and stamps all over our will.

What moral purpose is there to a law which defines "ZIL lanes" for Olympic plutocrats? What moral purpose is there to a law which defines what you may eat in specific parts of London? What moral purpose is there to a law which disallows you from using the current year in your own marketing efforts if it is not approved by LOCOG?

There are really too many laws, regulations, statutory instruments and rules in our lives. You can't reasonably be expected to comply with things if you're not even aware they exist. "Ignorance is no excuse for the law" was a reasonable thing when there weren't hundreds of thousands of laws, rules and regulations micro-managing the minutiae of our lives. I think, perhaps, it is time to rethink that maxim.

But in the meantime, remember that it's business taking advantage of things that are offered to them by corrupt authorities. In the American parlance: don't hate the player, hate the game.

Monday, 14 June 2010

Hoo-fucking-ray

God Almighty: the American judicial system has finally had enough of Darl McBride and SCO's frivolous claims:

Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. Novell is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.

CASE CLOSED!

Maybe I should say cases closed. The door has slammed shut on the SCO litigation machine. The judge writes in the Memorandum Decision and Order about SCOsource, "Finally, while SCO's witnesses testified that the copyrights were 'required' for SCO to run its SCOsource licensing program, this was not something that SCO ever acquired from Novell." He totally got it. He noticed Darl McBride admitted that SCO didn't need the copyrights. It couldn't be any better if I'd written it myself.

Was the jury misled or confused? Not at all, the judge writes: "The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO's witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation."

"The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith," Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.



I really dislike protracted legal battles, but I sincerely hope IBM FUCKS SCO IN THE ASS!!!

Bunch of fucking cock-suckers.

Friday, 8 August 2008

Take the fifth ... no, really!

Just found this post, by the knife-waving madman.

I'm really not sure whether we have an equivalent right in the UK, but if we do, seize it with both hands. Watch the video, really, it's fantastic: scary, enlightening, entertaining and it might just save your arse one day. 45 minutes very, very well spent!

Monday, 14 July 2008

The difference between a good government and a bad government

The more I think about it, the more I think the difference between a good government and a bad one is the number of laws that are enacted. Let's face it, most (or even all) of the important stuff is already covered by existing legislation, so if a government is introducing swathes of new legislation, it must, by definition, be tinkering around the edges or just introducing stuff that is going to work out badly.

It goes without saying that New Labour have introduced thousands of new bits of legislation since 1997.