Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Permalink for comment 341503
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
Nothing wrong as in "It's only illegal for monopolies"? Or nothing wrong as in "It shouldn't be illegal for non-monopolies"? I'm starting to wonder whether "tying" shouldn't be considered anti-consumer, and against the best interests of "We, the people (of the World)" across the board. The company I worked for for 20 years is tiny. Microscopic, really. And it certainly did a lot of things that were anti-consumer because the law allowed it. The clients in my charge were, to a great extent, insulated from that. And our owner wasn't a bad guy. Just someone who operated within the law and felt legality was more or less equivalent to morality. I'm descibing him in more of a negative light, here, than is really warranted, because he had a conscience and a value system that I respected, or else I wouldn't have worked there for 20 years. But let's just say that our ethical systems diverged.
I have to wonder if tying of materials and services should be quite as legal as it is. Would it be better or worse if it was not... as long as everyone had to play by the same rules?
I'm pretty much just putting this out for discussion. I'm not sure where I actually stand on it.
Edited 2008-12-25 23:18 UTC