5 ms·
That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies have libe
by smithkl42 10y ago
That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech (you don't want the government telling newspapers what to print), and they have rights to sell what they want, just as we have rights to not buy the merde they try to force on us. Twitter has the right to shut down speech on its network that it doesn't like, and that's not a First Amendment issue. Nobody's liberties are being taken away: rather, someone's liberties are being exercised.
Now, I do think that a lawsuit may be in order here, because it seems quite plausible that HP acted deceptively. But that's not "our rights being taken away", which is primarily an issue related to the guys with guns (i.e., the government). This isn't that: rather, it's a company lying to us, and trying to get us to buy their product on false pretenses.
- jackmott 10y agoHow about we start characterizing "company lying to us" as theft, and put them in actual jail for it, then? If you want to treat corporations like people with liberties, let's make basic laws like fraud and theft have consequences. We shoot and choke to death people selling cigarettes or cds 'illegally' on the side of the street why can't Wells Fargo executives go to jail for theft?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- witty_username 10y agoBut financial crimes are illegal. Could you point out a specific person/case? Wells Fargo fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine.
- cmdrfred 10y agoWells Fargo's shareholders fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine. As far as I'm aware the CEO kept his job and bonus.
- corecoder 10y ago> and they have rights to sell what they want No, they don't. They cannot sell a device that harms you or your neighbours, for instance. More to the point, they cannot sell a device that prevents competition.
- mc32 10y agoYou're taking that statement too literally. When people say something like that it's with the understanding they imply legal provisions apply. So, in this case, if it's not legal and HP committed some commercial offence they can and should be sued for non compliance.
- aidenn0 10y agoThe GP post is suggesting we make what HP did illegal, so that companies will be discouraged from doing it in the future.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago> companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech Maybe they shouldn't. Companies are not people, and as such don't have the same moral standing. Only the people that comprise them do.
- nixos 10y agoBut then the US government would be able to tell the NYT, CNN and NBC what to print and what not to print (No, you may not print that news which embarrasses the President, It's against Regulation 5v). > Only the people that comprise them do. That may work to defend Facebook and Twitter (which allows anyone to post anything, Copyright stays with author, so perhaps it can get away with "safe harbor"). Once the newspaper decides anything (and definitely if it owns the IP), it's now their freedom of speech which is impaired, not the authors.
- sqeaky 10y agoStallman never said to avoid using consumer choice. People publishing lists of bogus printers is stronger than just choice because it could coordinate a larger group. I wonder what would happen to stock prices in printer companies if it became common practice for the the EFF, FSF, and several other noteworthy, but not yet large groups published lists quarterly saying not to buy HP printer and recommending good competitor devices. It would be a good service to the public and could possibly attract more donations and if just a few news outlets ran with it there could a few % points dropped from HP stock price. If the shareholders ain't happy, then nobody at HP is happy.