Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Commerce Clause (Score 1) 514

Your statement, while logical on it's face, contradicts supreme court doctrine (which I would probably agree with you should be overturned). Look for "substantial effect", in particular

The cumulative effect argument discussed above was firmly established by the Court in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). 7 U.S.C.S. 1281 and 1340 (the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938) established production quotas for wheat farmers and imposed a penalty on excess production. Filburn, a farmer in Montgomery County, Ohio, was not engaged in growing wheat for commercial purposes on a large scale. Instead, he grew wheat “to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding.” Wickard at 114. Under the Act, Filburn’s 1941 allotment was 11.1 acres of wheat, for a total of approximately 223 bushels. But Filburn harvested 23 acres in total, which yielded 239 bushels in excess of his quota. In accordance with the Act he was subject to a penalty of 49 cents per bushel, which he refused to pay. Wickard is important because while Filburn harvested more than double his quota it is nonetheless clear that his extra 239 bushels of wheat could not, of itself, have any significant impact on interstate commerce. Furthermore, the excess wheat in question was not intended to be placed into the stream of commerce, but rather was to be used primarily for home consumption. The rationale for finding Congressional authority to regulate this activity pursuant to the Commerce Clause comes from cumulative effect that many similar farmers raising wheat for their personal use would have on the demand for wheat purchased in the marketplace. “Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce [and] would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing the purpose of the Act". Wickard at 128-129. So even if an activity in itself does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may still regulate the activity if there is a substantial cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce.

See: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/CongressionalPowers/SubstantialEffect.asp

Comment Re:Give me a break (Score 1) 542

Agree on the PARC comment - once I saw that I stopped reading. Apple PAID Xerox for the access to their lab in stock. Xerox was rooting for Apple to succeed and they weren't doing a damn thing with Star, the DLion, or anything else that was making a profit. Except sell more toner.

Comment Re:Marketing-driven products (Score 1) 273

You need to think like a big corporation.

When they say: "Every TV set we all make loses money" it doesn't mean what you think it means.

What they are really saying is "Every TV set we all make doesn't continue to make us money once it's been sold"

Nonsense. Read the article: "Sony said last week that it expects a loss of more than $1 billion in the fiscal year through March, in part because of its struggling television business, which has been a thorn in its side for close to a decade. The business has bled red ink because of plunging prices and declining demand."

Comment Re:Predatory Business Practice? (Score 1) 218

I think they're charging for bringing in new subscribers, not offering someone else's content. How is this different from the cheap subscriptions repackagers sell for which the publisher gets $0 but the name of a new sucker to send renewal notices to? Most magazines and newspapers sell their wares for the cost of physical publication, and make the money for content and profit from ads. That argues the eventual subscription price will be $0.00 for which Apple's 30% cut will not be an issue.

Comment Re:Movies (Score 0) 148

Only clueless moron would buy ANYTHING from itunes. The fresh fruit is free (of the hardware and software), the rotten fruit is to bind yourself to one manufacturer.

Parse that for me will you? Isn't fruit (and brains for that matter) hardware? Isn't the software your mind? the notion "fresh fruit" is already bound to both hardware and software. Suggest you work on your metaphors and your case isn't helped by the ad hominim.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...