4 ms·

Probably a good idea to pass a law that certain key government employees can only own index funds (here's looking at you, congress). However, with the benefit

Probably a good idea to pass a law that certain key government employees can only own index funds (here's looking at you, congress). However, with the benefit of hindsight, we can all take solace in the fact that, regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, Nokia was doomed to failure anyways. Turns out a bureaucracy built around selling hardware might be liable to underestimate the rising importance of software.

spaniard89277 5y ago
Or just force judges to disclose conflicts of interests.
- enkid 5y ago
  Isn't that exactly what this is?
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Each state bar’s ethics rules already prohibit it. It’s grounds for losing your law license.
  - tssva 5y ago
    A law license isn't required to be a federal judge.
chaz6 5y ago
Nokia were doing well developing their new platform Meego based on Linux, but then Stephen Elop came from Microsoft and decided to put a stop to it and instead concentrate on Windows Phone. I believe that is what ultimately killed Nokia's phone division.
- tsjq 5y ago
  it was widely alleged / believed that S.E was sent to Nokia with a specific goal that would benefit M$
- pembrook 5y ago
  While the “one outsider came in and ruined everything” narrative might be a soothing one (especially for the people of Finland), I’m not sure it’s actually true. Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? I don’t think it’s a mistake that the only true competitor to Apple ended up being Google. At the time, they were the most competent big player in web-based software. The acquisition of Android and integration with Google services like search, navigation, gmail, etc. is a value-add that Nokia could never have matched. Apple of course already had the value add of their entire ecosystem of computing and multimedia ecosystem (iPod, iTunes, etc). Windows phone failed because its value-add didn’t actually have much value, unlike the Google and Apple ecosystems. It turns out nobody needs excel, PowerPoint, etc integration on their phone. Nokia would have had even less value-add in the software space, given they had no software ecosystem at all!
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    > Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? At the time.. sure. Symbian was great back then, and in many many countries, there were no large data plans back then, and a phone that needed to be online for a lot of the gimmicky features to work was not something a lot of people wanted or needed, because of data costs... app support was probably most important to people then.
    - LightG 5y ago
      Symbian was great back then against feature phones ... but absolutely obliterated by todays competition. I have a hard time believe they would have stood a chance (even assuming the software was evens, organisationally they wouldn't have made it work).
      - Revenant-15 5y ago
        Well, good thing they didn't have to compete with today's mobile OS's back then. Android back then was abjectly terrible. They definitely had a shot at the second spot behind Apple, especially in low-income countries.
- gtirloni 5y ago
  If Windows Phone couldn't compete with Apple, I don't think Meego would have done any better.
- equalsione 5y ago
  From my very limited interactions with them, Nokias saw mobile operators as their customers, not end-users. They were never going to do anything with it that would piss off the likes of the like of Verizon, Vodafone, Orange etc. I have an n800 and n810 - the n810 is a thing of beauty in my opinion, even now. But there's no way they could compete with Apple or Google because Nokia designed phones that kept the operators happy and didn't step on any toes. Apple and Google didn't care about any of that.
dpierce9 5y ago
This is already a law for executive branch employees (SEC employees, spouses, children are generally not allowed to own individual stocks).

spaniard89277 5y ago

Or just force judges to disclose conflicts of interests.

enkid 5y ago
Isn't that exactly what this is?
colejohnson66 5y ago
Each state bar’s ethics rules already prohibit it. It’s grounds for losing your law license.
- tssva 5y ago
  A law license isn't required to be a federal judge.

chaz6 5y ago

Nokia were doing well developing their new platform Meego based on Linux, but then Stephen Elop came from Microsoft and decided to put a stop to it and instead concentrate on Windows Phone. I believe that is what ultimately killed Nokia's phone division.

tsjq 5y ago
it was widely alleged / believed that S.E was sent to Nokia with a specific goal that would benefit M$
pembrook 5y ago
While the “one outsider came in and ruined everything” narrative might be a soothing one (especially for the people of Finland), I’m not sure it’s actually true. Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? I don’t think it’s a mistake that the only true competitor to Apple ended up being Google. At the time, they were the most competent big player in web-based software. The acquisition of Android and integration with Google services like search, navigation, gmail, etc. is a value-add that Nokia could never have matched. Apple of course already had the value add of their entire ecosystem of computing and multimedia ecosystem (iPod, iTunes, etc). Windows phone failed because its value-add didn’t actually have much value, unlike the Google and Apple ecosystems. It turns out nobody needs excel, PowerPoint, etc integration on their phone. Nokia would have had even less value-add in the software space, given they had no software ecosystem at all!
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  > Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? At the time.. sure. Symbian was great back then, and in many many countries, there were no large data plans back then, and a phone that needed to be online for a lot of the gimmicky features to work was not something a lot of people wanted or needed, because of data costs... app support was probably most important to people then.
  - LightG 5y ago
    Symbian was great back then against feature phones ... but absolutely obliterated by todays competition. I have a hard time believe they would have stood a chance (even assuming the software was evens, organisationally they wouldn't have made it work).
    - Revenant-15 5y ago
      Well, good thing they didn't have to compete with today's mobile OS's back then. Android back then was abjectly terrible. They definitely had a shot at the second spot behind Apple, especially in low-income countries.
gtirloni 5y ago
If Windows Phone couldn't compete with Apple, I don't think Meego would have done any better.
equalsione 5y ago
From my very limited interactions with them, Nokias saw mobile operators as their customers, not end-users. They were never going to do anything with it that would piss off the likes of the like of Verizon, Vodafone, Orange etc. I have an n800 and n810 - the n810 is a thing of beauty in my opinion, even now. But there's no way they could compete with Apple or Google because Nokia designed phones that kept the operators happy and didn't step on any toes. Apple and Google didn't care about any of that.

dpierce9 5y ago

This is already a law for executive branch employees (SEC employees, spouses, children are generally not allowed to own individual stocks).