Updated: Microsoft Currently Trying to Track and Identify Xbox One Info Leaker

[Elijin]

Whether the leaked info turns out to be good or bad for them, the end result is that a staff member proved to be untrustworthy and violated their employment contract.

Whether you find the idea of marketing losses and industry secrets and all that laughable or not, you have to see that's not a trait you want to go unanswered in an employee.

 

[Strazdas]

Microsoft trying to sue a guy for something that will come out anyway is laughable and only makes those rumors more believable and makes Microsoft that much more of a joke in the process. You can't dispel rumors by acting suspicious.

Someone with NDAs with Microsoft broke them. It's hardly laughable for someone to get in trouble for intentionally doing something illegal.

I think whats laughable is that such things can be made illegal to begin with. Embargos need to die, they are not beneficial. Gaming industry needs transparancy, badly.

MS seeking this person does lend some credibility to the claims, I think.

one needs to remmeber that the information about MS seeking for a leaker is supposedly a "leak" itself so you assume that it is credible and that a rumor somehow gives credibility to another rumor?

 

[Sarge034]

I think whats laughable is that such things can be made illegal to begin with. Embargos need to die, they are not beneficial. Gaming industry needs transparancy, badly.

As someone who has had went to college for business management I can tell you this is a bad idea. NDAs and the like are in place to ensure that companies can keep their competitive edge against each other. It would be like if you were in a group and you were all told to start thinking of topics for a paper. You are just casually talking with the group and discussing everyone's ideas and that one asshole will inevitably take the best topic (that obviously wasn't theirs) and you can't do anything about it.

one needs to remmeber that the information about MS seeking for a leaker is supposedly a "leak" itself so you assume that it is credible and that a rumor somehow gives credibility to another rumor?

When the pieces seem to fit right, yes. Just remember, credibility is a far stretch from confirmation.

 

[Strazdas]

I think whats laughable is that such things can be made illegal to begin with. Embargos need to die, they are not beneficial. Gaming industry needs transparancy, badly.

As someone who has had went to college for business management I can tell you this is a bad idea. NDAs and the like are in place to ensure that companies can keep their competitive edge against each other. It would be like if you were in a group and you were all told to start thinking of topics for a paper. You are just casually talking with the group and discussing everyone's ideas and that one asshole will inevitably take the best topic (that obviously wasn't theirs) and you can't do anything about it.

While my degree in economics is no business management, i done my fiar share of business analysis. Its a bad idea only if you think that busness being able to monopolize products and services and information and sueing anyone that does the same thing better is a good thing. i for one want the most efficient business to have the competetive edge and not the ones with best army of lawyers and boguht politicians.
Yes, that asshole would take the topic, SO WHAT? if hes good at writing this topic he will do well, if not he will not. maybe hes even better at this topic than you are, however you want to refuse to let him even try because hur dur i want to do it instead.

 

[Sarge034]

While my degree in economics is no business management, i done my fiar share of business analysis. Its a bad idea only if you think that busness being able to monopolize products and services and information and sueing anyone that does the same thing better is a good thing. i for one want the most efficient business to have the competetive edge and not the ones with best army of lawyers and boguht politicians.
Yes, that asshole would take the topic, SO WHAT? if hes good at writing this topic he will do well, if not he will not. maybe hes even better at this topic than you are, however you want to refuse to let him even try because hur dur i want to do it instead.

God I hated the economic classes, how did you major in that shit?

Anyway, NDAs don't necessarily equate to monopolization. I would actually put that in the court of patents, copyright, trademarks, and the like. It also depends on if you are looking at it from the consumer side or the business side.

As a business, if I spend the time and the money to research current trends anything I come up with is an investment at that point because I spent man hours and capitol to get that information. Have to think of a clear cut example... Wii fit. Nintendo did the market research to find that this was a thing that the market wanted but didn't have anything to fill that need. If Nintendo had made that public knowledge then they would be doing free market research for their competitors.

As a consumer, NDAs only really affect us if a product is shit. In gaming they restrict ANY review information before the official launch if the devs/publisher know the game sucks (if the game gets a review at all). In manufacturing a contracted assembly company can't tell you about chinchy construction of an item. Ect.

While I do think monopolies, business law, patents, and copyright are all very interesting points of discussion when it comes down to it NDAs only restrict the flow of "proprietary information". As such I can't deny they serve a purpose that needs to be filled.

 

[Strazdas]

While my degree in economics is no business management, i done my fiar share of business analysis. Its a bad idea only if you think that busness being able to monopolize products and services and information and sueing anyone that does the same thing better is a good thing. i for one want the most efficient business to have the competetive edge and not the ones with best army of lawyers and boguht politicians.
Yes, that asshole would take the topic, SO WHAT? if hes good at writing this topic he will do well, if not he will not. maybe hes even better at this topic than you are, however you want to refuse to let him even try because hur dur i want to do it instead.

God I hated the economic classes, how did you major in that shit?

Anyway, NDAs don't necessarily equate to monopolization. I would actually put that in the court of patents, copyright, trademarks, and the like. It also depends on if you are looking at it from the consumer side or the business side.

As a business, if I spend the time and the money to research current trends anything I come up with is an investment at that point because I spent man hours and capitol to get that information. Have to think of a clear cut example... Wii fit. Nintendo did the market research to find that this was a thing that the market wanted but didn't have anything to fill that need. If Nintendo had made that public knowledge then they would be doing free market research for their competitors.

As a consumer, NDAs only really affect us if a product is shit. In gaming they restrict ANY review information before the official launch if the devs/publisher know the game sucks (if the game gets a review at all). In manufacturing a contracted assembly company can't tell you about chinchy construction of an item. Ect.

While I do think monopolies, business law, patents, and copyright are all very interesting points of discussion when it comes down to it NDAs only restrict the flow of "proprietary information". As such I can't deny they serve a purpose that needs to be filled.

i love economics, i love statistics, and i love counting moneys. different things for different people i guess. (i also got my masters in accounting and auditing, so im very much into money counting).
everything is better with statistics. i am yet to see a game that has enough statistics for me. then again, i work at national statistics office, i may be a bit biased

NDAs dont necessary equate to monopolization, but they very often do, especially on things like information embargo like this. Copyright and trademark laws are quite broken and need a rewrite (and they give way too many powers for companies for way too long, when copyright was introduced it had a 26 year lifespan, for the time this was good, it should ahve gotten SHORTER as world moved faster, not longer). I look at it from the side of humanity. laws should be beneficial to humanity, not to selected few who happen to slap a NDA first.

See, your example is benefit to company monepolizing the market without any ability to respond by the competition. if nintendo would have made it a public knowledge they would have earned less on it than they did, becuase likely competition would have responded with competent product as well and public would have had a choice. this is GOOD for the market and bad for nintendo. I prefer economy as a whole over single company. companies of course prefer themselves above everything else, thus a conflict.

im not saying we should remove NDA completely, rather limit the cases where it can be used legally (like the instance of microsoft wanting to make another model). After all, if patent laws work correctly there is no reason to hide the thing you pattented (in fact, you cant, as your patent can be looked at by anyone since its public record).

it would also limit the "3 dollars PCM" deals, which in this particular case was actually illegal. according to trade commission in US anyone being paid to advertise something must disclose that he is paid for it, and the NDA MS made machinima folks sign forbid such disclosure, thus the NDA was actually breaking the regulations.

It is obviuos that we have very different views when it comes to business practices, and it may end up in very interesting discussion

 

[Sarge034]

i love economics, i love statistics, and i love counting moneys. different things for different people i guess. (i also got my masters in accounting and auditing, so im very much into money counting).
everything is better with statistics. i am yet to see a game that has enough statistics for me. then again, i work at national statistics office, i may be a bit biased

Lies, damn lies, and statistics >.>... I'm joking. I do enjoy actually dealing with the information, but the classes themselves were so outdated that they were almost pointless. When your prof, who was a vp in an industry leading business, says that the information is wrong but they have to teach/test you on it anyway it just feels pointless. At least she did us the service of teaching us the correct info on the side if we were interested.

NDAs dont necessary equate to monopolization, but they very often do, especially on things like information embargo like this. Copyright and trademark laws are quite broken and need a rewrite (and they give way too many powers for companies for way too long, when copyright was introduced it had a 26 year lifespan, for the time this was good, it should ahve gotten SHORTER as world moved faster, not longer). I look at it from the side of humanity. laws should be beneficial to humanity, not to selected few who happen to slap a NDA first.

Not trying to poke at you, but you do know what NDAs are right? From your description it seems like you lump them in with the likes of copyrights and patents. They are nothing alike. A copyright/patent "prevents" people from duplicating your specific thing and provides detailed, publicly available, records so you know what not to design while an NDA simply keeps people in the know from spilling the information before you are ready. I will agree that copyright law needs a rework if only because the internet and digital media didn't exist at its' conception. However, I can't agree that copyright protection needs to be diminished simply because the person who made "that thing" should get credit for having made "that thing" as long as "that thing" is relevant. You know how people can get around that kind of copyright law? They make their own "thing" that works better and doesn't use the preexisting item as a springboard.

See, your example is benefit to company monepolizing the market without any ability to respond by the competition. if nintendo would have made it a public knowledge they would have earned less on it than they did, becuase likely competition would have responded with competent product as well and public would have had a choice. this is GOOD for the market and bad for nintendo. I prefer economy as a whole over single company. companies of course prefer themselves above everything else, thus a conflict.

Nintendo withheld the information they paid for because it was an asset they paid for. They didn't monopolize anything as companies are free to make their own fitness "games" that don't infringe on Nintendo's patents or copyrights. Sony responded with the PlayStation Move fitness games and Microsoft responded with the Xbox 360 Kinect fitness games. Hell, there are even third party fitness games on the Wii. Had there been a monopoly there would only be Wii Fit on the market.

im not saying we should remove NDA completely, rather limit the cases where it can be used legally (like the instance of microsoft wanting to make another model). After all, if patent laws work correctly there is no reason to hide the thing you pattented (in fact, you cant, as your patent can be looked at by anyone since its public record).

That's not how patent/copyright law works. You patent very specific pieces, not the product as a whole (for the most part). So, continuing with the Wii Fit example, Nintendo would have filed a patent for a "game pad" (now known as the Wii Balance Board) and provided the specs so the patent office could file them away. Nintendo would file a copyright for the modified Miis in the Wii Fit version. Nintendo would file a patent for their fitness code including, but not limited to, the caloric burn computing algorithm, the exercise tracking code, and the goal system code. So any analysts that were scrutinizing Nintendo's filings, and make no mistake every company pays people to keep an eye on their competitors, would have come to the conclusion that Nintendo was working on some sort of exercise software, might be looking to change the Miis in some way, and had another "gimmicky" controller in the works. And that is just looking at the pertinent information. Anything that is made in an R&D lab is automatically patented just in case it is the next big thing. So the analysts would have had to wade through all of that info as well. However, one person breaking the NDA would have told the analysts that Nintendo was making a fitness game on the Wii that utilized in game avatars, personal profiles, and the balance board.

it would also limit the "3 dollars PCM" deals, which in this particular case was actually illegal. according to trade commission in US anyone being paid to advertise something must disclose that he is paid for it, and the NDA MS made machinima folks sign forbid such disclosure, thus the NDA was actually breaking the regulations.

Incorrect. The official statement was...

"This partnership between Machinima and Microsoft was a typical marketing partnership to promote Xbox One in December. The Xbox team does not review any specific content or provide feedback on content. Any confidentiality provisions, terms or other guidelines are standard documents provided by Machinima. For clarity, confidentiality relates to the agreements themselves, not the existence of the promotion."
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131539-Update-Microsoft-And-Machinima-Defend-YouTube-Promotion-Deal#

That means that, as per the law, the promotion itself was public knowledge but information like how much the video makers were being paid was confidential. Machinima somehow failed to require the "standard language" (as they call it) in the video's description at the beginning of this fiasco.

It is obviuos that we have very different views when it comes to business practices, and it may end up in very interesting discussion

Most of the conversations I'm a part of end up very interesting if nothing else.

 

[Strazdas]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics >.>... I'm joking. I do enjoy actually dealing with the information, but the classes themselves were so outdated that they were almost pointless. When your prof, who was a vp in an industry leading business, says that the information is wrong but they have to teach/test you on it anyway it just feels pointless. At least she did us the service of teaching us the correct info on the side if we were interested.

I can uderstnad the furtration. We had a financial analysis teacher in my masters that was just like that. he would point that we need to learn certain formula, and then spend half and hour telling us why that formula is completely useless in real business. funny thing is, due to me studying in different cities there were plenty of overlapping classes, and i was listening to these formulas for the 3rd time, and he was the first one to point it out openly.

Not trying to poke at you, but you do know what NDAs are right? From your description it seems like you lump them in with the likes of copyrights and patents. They are nothing alike.

I know what Non-Disclosure Agreements are. I lump them together because i think they are equally allowed to run without any regulation to the point of destruction of economy. Just like copyright laws, NDA laws should be rewritten from scaratch to benefit everyone and not just big companies.

Nintendo withheld the information they paid for because it was an asset they paid for. They didn't monopolize anything as companies are free to make their own fitness "games" that don't infringe on Nintendo's patents or copyrights. Sony responded with the PlayStation Move fitness games and Microsoft responded with the Xbox 360 Kinect fitness games. Hell, there are even third party fitness games on the Wii. Had there been a monopoly there would only be Wii Fit on the market.

Being a market leader is very important in business. Nintendo managed to legally force itself to be a market leader by not disclosing information they have, essentialy depriving other markets of equal competition. Granted, this is an example that isnt best suited to make my point, which is that transparency helps the market.

Incorrect. The official statement was...

Well, from one side we got microsoft rep defending microsoft, from another we got youtubers saying they wanted them to sign NDAs that didnt allow them to say that they are being paid for it. Who messed up here, microsoft or machinima, or the youtubers themselves i dont know, but all 3 are believable targets in my opinion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, assuming the rumors are true (and it actually makes sense from a business perspective) the only reason I imagine they're mad is because now Sony knows about it.
Blu-Ray free version? Digital-only? HMMM.
Sony doesn't get any royalties on those units sold, but more interesting to me is that the elimination of Blu-Ray just shits all over their "All-In-One entertainment box" pitch. The digital download only is aimed squarely at gamers (and possibly a response to Sony's PSN efforts, and the upcoming Steambox).

So I guess the Xbone needed gamers on board after all.

 

[Sarge034]

I can uderstnad the furtration. We had a financial analysis teacher in my masters that was just like that. he would point that we need to learn certain formula, and then spend half and hour telling us why that formula is completely useless in real business. funny thing is, due to me studying in different cities there were plenty of overlapping classes, and i was listening to these formulas for the 3rd time, and he was the first one to point it out openly.

Yeah, higher education curriculum is archaic and very padded with unnecessary classes to keep unpopular departments afloat. That is a business practice I could ***** about for hours.

I know what Non-Disclosure Agreements are. I lump them together because i think they are equally allowed to run without any regulation to the point of destruction of economy. Just like copyright laws, NDA laws should be rewritten from scaratch to benefit everyone and not just big companies.

I personally think that there could be one change to NDAs. I think that if you have agreed to the NDA but you are aware of things that are shady, but not quite illegal, you should be able to disclose that information to the proper authorities for review.

Being a market leader is very important in business. Nintendo managed to legally force itself to be a market leader by not disclosing information they have, essentialy depriving other markets of equal competition. Granted, this is an example that isnt best suited to make my point, which is that transparency helps the market.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Nintendo didn't "force" anything. They came up with the idea and no one else did. Nothing was stopping MS and Sony from developing a fitness game other than the fact they weren't looking to. While transparency is good is some areas complete transparence would be very detrimental to the free market.

Well, from one side we got microsoft rep defending microsoft, from another we got youtubers saying they wanted them to sign NDAs that didnt allow them to say that they are being paid for it. Who messed up here, microsoft or machinima, or the youtubers themselves i dont know, but all 3 are believable targets in my opinion.

I figure MS wanted to keep the details of the deal quiet (as they have a legal right to), Machinima probably forgot to put the little blurb in the videos' descriptions, and the youtubers are probably tilting the facts to discredit MS because "fuck MS" is a thing. Perhaps a deserved thing, but a thing no less.

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah, higher education curriculum is archaic and very padded with unnecessary classes to keep unpopular departments afloat. That is a business practice I could ***** about for hours.

well, there were people coming from other universities that never had such classes, so i sort of can see a point to an extent.

I personally think that there could be one change to NDAs. I think that if you have agreed to the NDA but you are aware of things that are shady, but not quite illegal, you should be able to disclose that information to the proper authorities for review.

yes, this one would be a nice first step.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Nintendo didn't "force" anything. They came up with the idea and no one else did. Nothing was stopping MS and Sony from developing a fitness game other than the fact they weren't looking to. While transparency is good is some areas complete transparence would be very detrimental to the free market.

Transparency is detrimental to monopolies. It benefits actual free market.

I figure MS wanted to keep the details of the deal quiet (as they have a legal right to), Machinima probably forgot to put the little blurb in the videos' descriptions, and the youtubers are probably tilting the facts to discredit MS because "fuck MS" is a thing. Perhaps a deserved thing, but a thing no less.

The problem was that youtubers claimed MS wanted to keep the existence of the deal quiet (as in not allowed to say you are advertising) which they dont have a legal right to do. And when it got called on it MS responded with "its common practice" which is like saying "yes i murdered somone but murder happens often so its ok". from the legality point of view.

 

[Sarge034]

well, there were people coming from other universities that never had such classes, so i sort of can see a point to an extent.

I was speaking specifically to the certification requirements in America and completely forgot to think you might have experienced a different system. I had to take classes that made sense for my major such as technical writing, higher English courses, pretty much a sample of all the business classes, and the like. However the course was padded with a bio-chemistry course that was Frankensteined into the nursing program, a calculus course that I would never use in my professional career, and the one that pissed me off the most... Music Appreciation. I don't have to fucking "appreciate" music to be able to run the business. I need to know how to manage personal, finances, and supply.

Transparency is detrimental to monopolies. It benefits actual free market.

So explain to me how one company spending resources on R&D and all other companies being able to get that information for free benefits the free market. The free market would devolve into waiting for one dumbass company to pay for the R&D so everyone else can vulture around it. It would kill any kind of entrepreneurial drive. I see that as being detrimental to the free market.

The problem was that youtubers claimed MS wanted to keep the existence of the deal quiet (as in not allowed to say you are advertising) which they dont have a legal right to do. And when it got called on it MS responded with "its common practice" which is like saying "yes i murdered somone but murder happens often so its ok". from the legality point of view.

I'm just saying that it devolved into a "he said she said" scenario. There is no real proof one way or the other as the youtubers claimed it was MS' fault and MS said they pay for advertisement all the time BUT it was only the terms of the deal that were confidential.

To equate it to your "murder" example everyone knows James Bond murders people but he is allowed to due to his license to kill. So he can say yes I murdered that man but I can't tell you why I did. That is classified information.

 

[Strazdas]

and the one that pissed me off the most... Music Appreciation.

what is this i dont even.
we need universities teaching us "music appreciation".

So explain to me how one company spending resources on R&D and all other companies being able to get that information for free benefits the free market. The free market would devolve into waiting for one dumbass company to pay for the R&D so everyone else can vulture around it. It would kill any kind of entrepreneurial drive. I see that as being detrimental to the free market.

It benefits free market because all comapnies have equal information therefore are at equal footing in competition. This means the the consumers can chose between products based on companies with no sacrofises while companies have to compete for costumers at equal footing. Meanwhile one company having information that others dont give it and advantage of extracting money from consumers and hogging the matrket - something a monopolies do. The company doing R&D would benefit less, but it would not be wasting its money in trasnparency model. They would benefit the same as all other companies, which can range from better building lines to costumer service improvement depending in what research is being done at.

I think you might be mixing free market in economical sense and free market in political sense.

I'm just saying that it devolved into a "he said she said" scenario. There is no real proof one way or the other as the youtubers claimed it was MS' fault and MS said they pay for advertisement all the time BUT it was only the terms of the deal that were confidential.

I agree that we do not know all the truth and is basing it on a "he said". I pointed as much in my original comment. however MS coming out and pretty much admitting it by saying "we always do that" leans it towards MS being the culprit.

To equate it to your "murder" example everyone knows James Bond murders people but he is allowed to due to his license to kill. So he can say yes I murdered that man but I can't tell you why I did. That is classified information.

James Bond wouldnt work in reality though. He would be jailed quite swiftly.

 

[Sarge034]

what is this i dont even.
we need universities teaching us "music appreciation".

Yep. You should look up some US degree programs sometime for a good chuckle.

It benefits free market because all comapnies have equal information therefore are at equal footing in competition. This means the the consumers can chose between products based on companies with no sacrofises while companies have to compete for costumers at equal footing. Meanwhile one company having information that others dont give it and advantage of extracting money from consumers and hogging the matrket - something a monopolies do. The company doing R&D would benefit less, but it would not be wasting its money in trasnparency model. They would benefit the same as all other companies, which can range from better building lines to costumer service improvement depending in what research is being done at.

I think you might be mixing free market in economical sense and free market in political sense.

Actually both definitions of a free market are rather similar. I believe you are confusing free market with communism. In a free market there will be a standard of service or good and some company will develop a better service or good that takes the previous things place as the new standard. This forces competitors to innovate to bring their goods up to, or surpass, the new standard or perish. In a communist market everyone owns everything, R&D information included, and there is no real competition or massive innovations. The market will stagnate if you make it so companies can not keep their proprietary information.

And you keep using the word "monopoly"... Is something being lost in translation because a monopoly is when only one company provides a service or good. R&D information defiantly gives companies an edge, but it by no means shuts out the competition as shown with the Wii Fit and the slew of other fitness "games" that followed in its' wake.

I agree that we do not know all the truth and is basing it on a "he said". I pointed as much in my original comment. however MS coming out and pretty much admitting it by saying "we always do that" leans it towards MS being the culprit.

And as much as I hate coming to MS' aid I was pointing out that they said the act of paying for advertising in youtube videos was standard practice, not concealing the fact they were paying for advertising.

James Bond wouldnt work in reality though. He would be jailed quite swiftly.

If they were as grandiose as Bond yes, but do you really believe that governments don't have wetwork teams that do "stuff" like that? But it was late and I couldn't come up with a better analogy. I'll try this one. What if your friends were forced to tell you what they really thought all of the time and you the same to them? Would this free exchange of information help or harm your friendships? I know it would harm a fair few of mine. Free exchange of information is not always a good thing.

 

[Strazdas]

Actually both definitions of a free market are rather similar. I believe you are confusing free market with communism. In a free market there will be a standard of service or good and some company will develop a better service or good that takes the previous things place as the new standard. This forces competitors to innovate to bring their goods up to, or surpass, the new standard or perish. In a communist market everyone owns everything, R&D information included, and there is no real competition or massive innovations. The market will stagnate if you make it so companies can not keep their proprietary information.

And you keep using the word "monopoly"... Is something being lost in translation because a monopoly is when only one company provides a service or good. R&D information defiantly gives companies an edge, but it by no means shuts out the competition as shown with the Wii Fit and the slew of other fitness "games" that followed in its' wake.

If they were as grandiose as Bond yes, but do you really believe that governments don't have wetwork teams that do "stuff" like that? But it was late and I couldn't come up with a better analogy. I'll try this one. What if your friends were forced to tell you what they really thought all of the time and you the same to them? Would this free exchange of information help or harm your friendships? I know it would harm a fair few of mine. Free exchange of information is not always a good thing.

The free market advocated in politics and free market in economical sense are different beats. Free market in economical sense is sometimes defined as perfect competition, as used in this link [http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics6.asp]. It is the opposite of monopoly and while granted is as extreme as its opposite and is almost impossible in real world situation (due to noone having ALL information), this is something that benefits society. In fact, there are laws encouraging it while there are laws discouraging monopolies.
I am not confusing this with communism and i am well aware of what communism is. I disagree about market stagnating, as we saw this does not happen in almost perfect competition food market for example.

Monopoly is when one has exclusive rights to something. A service monopoly is when only one company provides the service, but monopolies also exist for information - for example copyright. Sometimes monopoly is held up by law (as in copyright case) and sometimes naturally by high entry costs (for example internet provider monopolies). You use monopoly in only one narrow sense of the word which makes you confused when i use it in broader sense.

Yes, there are such teams in reality. As was evident last week on the escapists when the public learns about such teams however most cry out for judging them on same standart as other people - to make them accountable for their crimes. and while the government can and does break its own laws it does not mean something like James Bond would be able to go around and continue to be a chronic alcoholic (the amount of alcohol he consumes if we go by the movies would actually kill him from intoxication).
I believe that lieing is one of the worst thing a human can do in a relationship. The lieing part is also the larger part of the problem with people getting mad about secret lovers. I think living in a world where we would have to say truth to others would be a strange experience, but better as a whole. Imagine not having to worry that someone just lied to you? It would also allow for fair criticism when it is deserved (since your not lieing) which would be a thing to ponder about at least to intelligent people.
I dont know why do you keep around friends that you need to lie to keep, but that is your choice of course.

 

[Sarge034]

The free market advocated in politics and free market in economical sense are different beats. Free market in economical sense is sometimes defined as perfect competition, as used in this link [http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics6.asp]. It is the opposite of monopoly and while granted is as extreme as its opposite and is almost impossible in real world situation (due to noone having ALL information), this is something that benefits society. In fact, there are laws encouraging it while there are laws discouraging monopolies.
I am not confusing this with communism and i am well aware of what communism is. I disagree about market stagnating, as we saw this does not happen in almost perfect competition food market for example.

I see. I was using the literal economic free market definition and the regulated free market political definition.

Monopoly is when one has exclusive rights to something. A service monopoly is when only one company provides the service, but monopolies also exist for information - for example copyright. Sometimes monopoly is held up by law (as in copyright case) and sometimes naturally by high entry costs (for example internet provider monopolies). You use monopoly in only one narrow sense of the word which makes you confused when i use it in broader sense.

Yes I was disregarding natural monopolies as they are not the companies' fault. I would not consider copyright a monopoly however simply because it does not ensure that no other company could make a similar product. It is simply akin to the security the company hires to protect their physical assets. Is that a monopoly because they do not allow their competitors to have free run of their facility?

Yes, there are such teams in reality. As was evident last week on the escapists when the public learns about such teams however most cry out for judging them on same standart as other people - to make them accountable for their crimes. and while the government can and does break its own laws it does not mean something like James Bond would be able to go around and continue to be a chronic alcoholic (the amount of alcohol he consumes if we go by the movies would actually kill him from intoxication).

I must have missed that story. I always laugh when people say they need to be judged like everyone else. Their job is to kill people so how in the hell can you judge them like other people?

I believe that lieing is one of the worst thing a human can do in a relationship. The lieing part is also the larger part of the problem with people getting mad about secret lovers. I think living in a world where we would have to say truth to others would be a strange experience, but better as a whole. Imagine not having to worry that someone just lied to you? It would also allow for fair criticism when it is deserved (since your not lieing) which would be a thing to ponder about at least to intelligent people.
I dont know why do you keep around friends that you need to lie to keep, but that is your choice of course.

You never tell a "little white lie"? Sometimes the truth is detrimental to the situation.

 

[Strazdas]

Yes I was disregarding natural monopolies as they are not the companies' fault. I would not consider copyright a monopoly however simply because it does not ensure that no other company could make a similar product. It is simply akin to the security the company hires to protect their physical assets. Is that a monopoly because they do not allow their competitors to have free run of their facility?

Natural monopolies are still monopolies. This is why central heating companies are constantly being bombarded by inqueries they are not raising the costs above the necessary (at least in normal countries ). Comcast is also a natural monopoly due to high costs of infrastructure needed for competition to arise, they are still a moneygrubbing bastards nonetheless.
COpyright is a government granted monopoly. you cant offer identical service/product, now can you? no? so they got a monopoly on that product. To see why that is bad lets say somone gets copyright on potatoes. now only one company can grow and sell potatoes. surely this is ridiculous, but thats what copyright is. Similar products will be forever stuck in courts for "ripoffs". i mean Apple managed to trademark things like round edges and swapping pages by swiping. and they are winning courts on that one.
Its a monopoly because its is illegal to create and sell same product.

I must have missed that story. I always laugh when people say they need to be judged like everyone else. Their job is to kill people so how in the hell can you judge them like other people?

Noone is above the law (in a perfect world anyway). If their actions are unlawful they should be judged appropriately. you should not be able to ignore laws just because your employer wants you to. laws > job. you either judge everyone equality or you got a corrupt system.

You never tell a "little white lie"? Sometimes the truth is detrimental to the situation.

I try to avoid lieing as much as possible and demand others to do the same. id rather take criticism at face value than somone lie to me because they want to look good. I cannot say i am never guilty of lieing, however there is no such thing as a white lie. a lie is a lie.
Truth is detrimental only if the people hearing it is incapable to evaluate the reality of the situation. Sadly, humans are quite poor at that.

 

[Sarge034]

For the love of god can you please put some space between the quotes and your text? Trying to reply is a *****.

Natural monopolies are still monopolies. This is why central heating companies are constantly being bombarded by inqueries they are not raising the costs above the necessary (at least in normal countries ). Comcast is also a natural monopoly due to high costs of infrastructure needed for competition to arise, they are still a moneygrubbing bastards nonetheless.

However, to my knowledge there is no true monopoly due to a natural monopoly situation. There are multiple companies that provide utilities, heating, and telecom so there is some competition to stabilize and drive down the prices. I'm all for regulations on natural monopolies to keep the prices form skyrocketing, but the competition helps keep everyone in check too.

COpyright is a government granted monopoly. you cant offer identical service/product, now can you? no? so they got a monopoly on that product. To see why that is bad lets say somone gets copyright on potatoes. now only one company can grow and sell potatoes. surely this is ridiculous, but thats what copyright is. Similar products will be forever stuck in courts for "ripoffs". i mean Apple managed to trademark things like round edges and swapping pages by swiping. and they are winning courts on that one.
Its a monopoly because its is illegal to create and sell same product.

Yes you can offer an "identical service". This time it is you who are thinking too specific. Apple and Microsoft both have proprietary smartphone software, proprietary smartphone hardware, proprietary networks, ect. HOWEVER, they both compete with each other in the telecom market. A monopoly means that only one company fills a certain market niche. The PS, Xbox, and Wii are all proprietary hardware and software but they all compete in the same market niche. I am seriously starting to doubt your claims of having business education as the definition of a monopoly is an entry level thing...

Noone is above the law (in a perfect world anyway). If their actions are unlawful they should be judged appropriately. you should not be able to ignore laws just because your employer wants you to. laws > job. you either judge everyone equality or you got a corrupt system.

But what about when you they have different laws specifically for them? Did you know that the US special forces have classified clauses in our laws that give them more leeway than conventional forces? They are not above the law, they just have different laws to follow. People don't understand that and think the soldiers should be held to the same laws as some dude that sits in an office all day.

I try to avoid lieing as much as possible and demand others to do the same. id rather take criticism at face value than somone lie to me because they want to look good. I cannot say i am never guilty of lieing, however there is no such thing as a white lie. a lie is a lie.
Truth is detrimental only if the people hearing it is incapable to evaluate the reality of the situation. Sadly, humans are quite poor at that.

So then you have had an easy life. I have had to live my entire life knowing when to lie to people. My father was in the USAF from before I was born till I was 22. I knew about troops deploying for Operation Dessert Storm about a week before the rest of the world. I knew the F-22 Raptor blew ass before they were even deployed to their duty stations. I've had "Secret" security clearance. I know that the truth can be detrimental, case in point. If I went telling everyone that the F-22 absolutely blew the entire North-West of the US would have been vulnerable to aerial attack when the F-16s were redeployed to the Mid-West before the USAF admitted the F-22s were garbage. It's not always about feelings, sometimes it's about lives.

I think our conflicting views are summed up in this section. I know the value, or more accurately the potential destruction that information can cause. While you seem not to.

 

[Strazdas]

For the love of god can you please put some space between the quotes and your text? Trying to reply is a *****.

I dont see a problem with formatting in the post your quoting. You want me to make large scroll areas between quotes or something?

However, to my knowledge there is no true monopoly due to a natural monopoly situation. There are multiple companies that provide utilities, heating, and telecom so there is some competition to stabilize and drive down the prices. I'm all for regulations on natural monopolies to keep the prices form skyrocketing, but the competition helps keep everyone in check too.

Then your knowledge is lacking. There is one central heating company, one central water utility company. In fact in order to use anything but that company you will likely spend more on legal fees than just using them. While technically it may not be illegal to use others after proper paperwork, practically there is no choice. And there is no alternative other than you make your own heating and dig your own well. It may be different in other countries.
Yes, competition helps to keep everyone in check, which is why i was arguing for it previuosly.

Yes you can offer an "identical service". This time it is you who are thinking too specific. Apple and Microsoft both have proprietary smartphone software, proprietary smartphone hardware, proprietary networks, ect. HOWEVER, they both compete with each other in the telecom market. A monopoly means that only one company fills a certain market niche. The PS, Xbox, and Wii are all proprietary hardware and software but they all compete in the same market niche. I am seriously starting to doubt your claims of having business education as the definition of a monopoly is an entry level thing...

Really? I can film my own Avengers and sell them? Do tell me how im sure i could make a lot of money on that.
But no, you dont sell identical services, you sell alternative services. To use the previously used potato example, an alternative service would be to sell carrots while somone has monopoly on potatoes. you wouldnt be selling potatoes, but still be in the food service market.

While i could provide evidence of my education i do believe that its not the education but the idea put forth here that you should be responding to.

But what about when you they have different laws specifically for them? Did you know that the US special forces have classified clauses in our laws that give them more leeway than conventional forces? They are not above the law, they just have different laws to follow. People don't understand that and think the soldiers should be held to the same laws as some dude that sits in an office all day.

They dont have different laws. laws are the same for everyone. They do have clauses that are specific to them. they do not allow them to go and randomly kill people they dont like however. Classified law is a joke. This is like saying god told them to do. If the public cannot see the law exists its as good as it doesnt.

So then you have had an easy life. I have had to live my entire life knowing when to lie to people. My father was in the USAF from before I was born till I was 22. I knew about troops deploying for Operation Dessert Storm about a week before the rest of the world. I knew the F-22 Raptor blew ass before they were even deployed to their duty stations. I've had "Secret" security clearance. I know that the truth can be detrimental, case in point. If I went telling everyone that the F-22 absolutely blew the entire North-West of the US would have been vulnerable to aerial attack when the F-16s were redeployed to the Mid-West before the USAF admitted the F-22s were garbage. It's not always about feelings, sometimes it's about lives.

You put forth a good reason for this and to a point it is understandable, however still not commendable. And if the world knew that F-22 was bad then maybe they would have incentive to build one that doesnt.

I think our conflicting views are summed up in this section. I know the value, or more accurately the potential destruction that information can cause. While you seem not to.

I know. I dont care. This is because i believe the world would be a better place in the long run. In this i have a Vulcan way of looking at this. The good of many outweigh the good of few.

 

[Sarge034]

I dont see a problem with formatting in the post your quoting. You want me to make large scroll areas between quotes or something?

The quotes were butt up against your reply to them. It was difficult to discern where the break was as I usually reply to this forum between 3 and 5 AM local time. Just a single space between the quote and the reply does wonders.

Then your knowledge is lacking. There is one central heating company, one central water utility company. In fact in order to use anything but that company you will likely spend more on legal fees than just using them. While technically it may not be illegal to use others after proper paperwork, practically there is no choice. And there is no alternative other than you make your own heating and dig your own well. It may be different in other countries.
Yes, competition helps to keep everyone in check, which is why i was arguing for it previuosly.

Perhaps it is not my knowledge that is lacking, but my experience. I have lived quite a few different places but admittedly all but one was in the US. Everywhere I have lived or visited in the US has had at least two or three different options for heating, electricity, and telecom unless the services were not available at all. Could you elaborate on where there is ONLY "one central heating company, one central water utility company"?

Really? I can film my own Avengers and sell them? Do tell me how im sure i could make a lot of money on that.
But no, you dont sell identical services, you sell alternative services. To use the previously used potato example, an alternative service would be to sell carrots while somone has monopoly on potatoes. you wouldnt be selling potatoes, but still be in the food service market.

Well, you could either move to China and not give a fuck or you could film a knockoff. A superhero film with similar heroes, villains, and plot with just enough changed to not incur the wrath of the law. IE, to provide an identical service (superhero mash-up movie) without using proprietary "things". It happens all the time.

As for your potato example, no. It would be like one farm owning a proprietary genetic make-up and the other farm growing a different species of potato to compete in the potato market.

While i could provide evidence of my education i do believe that its not the education but the idea put forth here that you should be responding to.

To assert you have a masters in a business field and then to have such a flawed understanding of an entry level term like monopoly is concerning. It means either you are lying about your education, which would render any meaningful discussion from a business education standpoint moot, or you do in fact have a masters but are, for one reason or another, unable to recall all of the information.

Personally I don't care. I would have this conversation with someone without any business education if they could remain civil, but it would change how I approached the conversation. Don't bother posting any "evidence" as it will either be fake or a gross breach of forum rules.

They dont have different laws. laws are the same for everyone. They do have clauses that are specific to them. they do not allow them to go and randomly kill people they dont like however. Classified law is a joke. This is like saying god told them to do. If the public cannot see the law exists its as good as it doesnt.

I'm going to need a second to laugh at the juxtaposition of the first three sentences. Anyway, I think we need to define what we are talking about a little bit better. The classified clauses deal with special forces in combat and those are far different from the unclassified clauses dealing with the armed forces in general. For example, and this is all US law because that's what I know, an unclassified clause is that it is illegal to own a spring assisted knife unless you are in law enforcement or the military. Another is that military personal can attend civilian handgun training under the age of 21 (the legal age to own a handgun). I don't know any of the classified clauses because... well they're classified. I do know from talking with some people who were absorbed by SOCOM (Special Operations Command) during a restructuring that... let's just say situations like the one faced in Lone Survivor don't happen any more and take from that what you will.

There are argument to be made for both sides of the classified law debate and both have merits. However, it is kind of a catch 22 as we need to know what they are to debate them but if the laws are disclosed it defeats the purpose of them being classified in the first place. Namely our enemies will adapt to the now known rules special forces operators must abide by.

You put forth a good reason for this and to a point it is understandable, however still not commendable. And if the world knew that F-22 was bad then maybe they would have incentive to build one that doesnt.

Not commendable? And putting the lives of every single person on the west coast in jeopardy IS commendable? ... I'll continue this in the next section.

I know. I dont care. This is because i believe the world would be a better place in the long run. In this i have a Vulcan way of looking at this. The good of many outweigh the good of few.

I happen to value human life in most circumstances and the fact that you so brazenly don't is legitimately disturbing. Perhaps you don't care because it wasn't your country at risk. It wasn't your family at risk. So I'll ask you this mr utilitarian, how is the US being attacked by a foreign power in a moment of weakness for the good of the many? Being the attack would have to take advantage of our limited air combat capabilities and the scope of the attack it would be a nation that would do it. That means the US is at war with said nation. That means all of the US' allies are at war with said nation. Said nation would then be at war with all of the US' allies. All of said nation's allies are at war with the US AND the US' allies. Welcome to WW3.

So if the entire world is the few, who the fuck is the many?