There are precedents to IBM's behavior. A "use them up, spit them out" attitude to the workforce is common where "raw unbridled capitalism" prevails. Examples that come to mind are the factory system in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, and the sex industry.

Capitalism is the most successful economic system, and is greed-driven, but it needs checks and balances built into it to allow it to be as beneficial as possible to society as a whole.

RTFM. With the emphasis on the F.

And for nearly any law, there will be a substantial class of people whose best interests will be served by finding *any possible loophole* to evade the law's intent. Such as, perhaps, laws against champerty.

Around 1980, I thought I'd try running. I bought a pair of good running shoes and was doing a couple of miles a day when the shoes wore out. I didn't have money to replace them, but since I knew some runners didn't wear shoes at all, I kept running anyway on the worn-out shoes. The result: wear-and-tear arthritis in the balls of my feet. To this day, I can walk at most 1/2 mile, and can only run about 20 yds. FWIW.

Oracle buys Sun, GM is considering selling Saturn, I hear even Uranus is up for grabs.

Ah, yes, the beloved 'free market'.

When a free market works against the public good, that market should be regulated. Examples where such control already exists, by one mechanism or another: corporate monopoly, price gouging in times of emergency, the length of the work week for wage earners, the cost of commuting by rail, the price of electricity.

Admittedly, market controls are difficult to implement, and should be used with caution. But just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean they can't be made better.

For example, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the American people, as a whole, to negotiate a group rate for medications.

Perhaps this technology could be used to produce the opposite effect.

A doctor could know the amount of pain medication a patient was *actually* taking (as opposed to selling on the street, etc.). Also, the doctor would have a record of this usage, to provide CYA.

The new pills could also provide protection against unscrupulous or incompetent "Dr Feelgoods" who are creating and supplying patients addicted to anti-anxiety medications.

The marginal costs to produce pharmaceuticals are significant, and often unpredictable. This is especially true of R&D. And drug companies are entitled to recoup those costs, as well as make a reasonable profit. But are they entitled to make a *disgusting* profit? On a product that literally means life or death to the consumer? The pharmaceutical industry is consistently among the most profitable in the world. In several years during this past decade, they have been *the* most profitable. Is this morally justified? In addition, as a taxpayer, I have funded some small part of the vast research efforts that went into the technologies upon which the new developments depend. Doesn't this give me some right to ask my government to place limits on the returns drug companies can expect on their investments? In the absence of regulation, corporations will charge what the market will bear for any good. They will reap whatever profit, obscene or otherwise, that they can-- without regard to the public weal. In the case of pharmaceuticals, this works decidedly *against* the good of the society, as today's out-of-control health care costs clearly demonstrate.

200 bucks to buy. That's what I have trouble digesting.

The harassment of coffee-shop owners for music licensing fees has never been customary. The fact that it is apparently *becoming* the custom in Florida is not likely to be unrelated to the ongoing DRM dispute.

This development threatens the livelihood of small-time musicians (such as I was) across the country. It reflects shortsightedness, greed, and desperation on the part of the licensing organizations.

The digital rights battle will be lost by those who seek to restrict fair use. Why? Because you cannot legislate ignorance. Knowledge, ingenuity, and access to minimal technological resources are all that are required to copy digital media. May it ever be thus.