Oracle does not. HP, however, makes PCs and servers and does operating system development on Unix and Linux platforms, in addition to their recent purchase of Palm, strictly for WebOS. The competition is not such that you and I would see it daily, but they are competitors.
A significant part of the issue is that Sprint and AT&T have completely different network architectures. For my Sprint phone to work on AT&T, it would require a very large investment in collaborative network upgrades. I am pretty sure that the carriers do not want to pay for this, and if the FCC/whomever mandates it, then the government (we) will pay for it. I am not sure I like that idea either.
So how do you think traffic violations should be addressed? The traffic laws were written for a reason, and despite your cynical suggestion of a profit motive, I'm pretty sure they were written to help traffic move either more safely or more efficiently. So when such laws are broken, what should happen? Should the culprits just be given a stern talking-to? Or should the legal system provide an actual disincentive to breaking the law?
Actually, the profit motive argument gains legitimacy when you realize that before a certain point in our history (before the 55 mph nationwide) the vast majority of the country did not have speed limits. Law enforcement wrote a ticket if you crashed, usually for excessive speed, reckless driving, or what ever fit the situation. Once a national limit was put in place, and cities, counties, and states realized there was revenue to be brought in by ticketing speeders. Why do you think in good times, law enforcement backs off on ticketing speeders (5+ mph buffer), and in tougher times, the buffer can be as low as 1 mph?
Just because cynicism irritates you, does not mean that it is misplaced.
Unfortunately, as Windstream is a rural ISP, there are very few alternatives in the areas they serve. The few places I have heard of that competition has come in, Windstream, Valor Telecom at that time, was pushed almost completely out.
Of course the current administration will not untangle this. It is not in President Obama's best interest to remove a policy that benefits him, also. As long as the telco's have immunity from lawsuits they will continue to provide access to their networks, for gov't surveillance purposes, of course. I do not care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, having that kind of access to information is....useful.
There are other companies already offering the same thing, (VoSKY-http://www.vosky.com) or similar, (Etherspeak-http://www.etherspeak.us). Both of these companies were demoing production products to a company I was working for 3 months ago, which does not sound like a long time until you consider that with the economy the way it is, few companies are going to want to change product lines just because Skype thinks they should.
VoSky uses Skype to make its connections. Why would I, as one with purchasing authority, go with Skype's offering when VoSKY has had months to work out bugs.
The military's bandwidth has been allocated in such a way that its main use, communication between forward deployed units and command centers takes priority. Social networking sites have not written their pages in a manner that gives the option of not sucking bandwidth. Why should the military have to account in their tactical network design, which is limited by technology that will handle "being in the field" for sites that do not account for them? FYI, some of the gear the military uses will work happily in Iraq without air conditioning, find me some Cisco gear that will do that.
Of course, there is also the issue of troops inadvertently compromising a unit's location and/or mission through a post on facebook or myspace.
As someone who was in the military, I have to say that this is not the best way to truly gauge whether violent video games and movies make one numb to real violence. From personal experience, the number of soldiers and marines that are reluctant to sight in on another human being is about where it was during Viet Nam. The line may be finer with the SFX that are in use now, but when another human's life is actually in the balance, that line still appears to be a mile wide.
Actually, it is more complicated than apparently you think. Though I could be wrong here, true standardization includes not just making every phone use a mini-usb charger. You also have to take into account that some phones are set up to require far less electricity from the adapter than others. As an example, I have three chargers in my drawer and none of them have the same output power. This means that phones and batteries have to be redesigned with the plan that company a's charger will safely power company b's phone. If any manufacturer decides to be bullish it could easily take until 2012.
From my perspective, The greatest flaw in Economics lies in the fact that is is classified as a social science, which by that classification implies that people are inherently involved. People, and their ability to act like lemmings will skew a model entirely because the model can not take into account exactly why the human psyche does what it does. Individuals, as mentioned above, have an unknown ability for greed that no model can account for.
Socialism and capitalism face the same issues. Both look outstanding on paper, but neither works well in a pure state.
Most people seem to forget that Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. Mac OSX is simply the icing on the cake for the hardware experience. What that experience is, exactly, I do not know; I refuse to drink the Kool-aid. I support some macs some of my extended family has purchased, and I see an over-priced, locked in system, with an OS that is optimized for Apple hardware. IMHO, if you move the system off the Apple hardware you have a dressed-up Ubuntu Linux, i. e. most things work, most of the time.
Disclaimer: I use various Linux distributions exclusively at home.
I am not sure how many people know about this already (it has been out for a week, almost) but (in my opinion) this would be an example of anti-competitive business practice Apple is able to engage in because of the monopolistic status of the ipod/iphone/itms. While there may be more to the story than this, what is mentioned in the blog is rather obvious to me as anti-competitive.
The pieces of legislation you are referring to are the Sherman and Clayton acts, which do not set out to define a company as a monopoly, and limit the company based on it being a monopoly, in and of itself. They were passed with the intention of limiting a company's ability to establish, and keep, a monopoly through anti-competitive practices, e. g. Microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil.
Many companies fit your criteria of monopoly; Google, and Hewlett Packard in the printer market, to name two off the top of my head. Neither one, however engages in the anti-competitive practices to keep any other entity out of their respective markets.
If you feel that you can bring a better product or service to market than any of these guys (Google, Apple, or HP) go ahead and try. If, once you get your feet on the ground (credibility with your target consumer) there is verifiable evidence that your entrance into the market is being blocked by a competitor, then the government might (highly unlikely in the US currently) step in with fines, or whatever else necessary.
I could be wrong, but I think I read that the students contacted the MBTA regarding this presentation and all they got in return was that they had been reported to the FBI, and now were under investigation.
Since you decided to play grammar nazi, proper English dictates that it should be "for whom to root." Otherwise "who to root for" is correct. As last I checked this is a technology blog, and not an English Literature blog, as long as the statement is coherent, I could not care less about a vernacular usage of the English language.
IANAL, nor have I read any comments past this one quoting the pertinent portion of Title 35; however, based upon what it says, and what was being argued before SCOTUS, the key term I see is "infringement". Intel was not infringing on this patent as they had licensed the technology from LG to begin with.