Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mozek who wrote (52390)	10/29/2000 5:56:08 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

In truth, I think there are some things that are just flat wrong under any reasonable ethic (e.g. murder) and are consequently illegal under virtually all legal systems. As soon as you start talking about such things as "violation of international copyright and patent laws" though, you are dealing with something that is neither immutable nor even unchanging. Laws change. What's legal under today's treaties might be illegal tomorrow, and vice versa. One man's industrial espionage is another man's market research. One man's fraudulent misrepresentation is another man's FUD. Especially if one takes the strict constructionist view of law (i.e. the one which to which I believe Republicans often subscribe), one is permitted to do anything not specifically forbidden. I.e. (as a random example <g>) if one is in Russia and there aren't any laws against invading a computer system in cyberspace (actually, I don't know whether there are or not), then one is justified in trying. There might even be instances when it would be negligent to NOT try (e.g. if one owed a duty to another to zealously pursue their interests and it could be shown that said interest required the attempt). What if it turns out that the KGB or some other government group is responsible -- would you expect them to be prosecuted under Russian law? From my vantage point, Microsoft's actions HAVE been adjudged illegal in a court of law, _subject to_ appeal; no more, no less. JMHO, and certainly neither a legal opinion nor investment advice. Charles Tutt (TM)