On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:56:23 -0500, David Cole wrote: > >WADR (BTW, I hate that phrase...) >
I just didn't want to start a flame war. We probably agree more than we disagree... And I probably read more into your post than you intended, so I apologize for that. But we are all in the same boat. We have built our living and our future on something someone else owns. We are at their mercy. That's not a very good feeling. And the way we seem to want to address it is by making our government or our courts make them play nice. I'm thinking a different strategy is more effective by pointing out their business model is not only evil, but not profitable and short sighted. Courts can make things happen after years of babbling and making lawyers billionaires. Governments can make things happen unless the target of their action makes campaign contributions. The people who make the decisions answer to their shareholders. Shareholders aren't as corruptable. They expect to make money. I think the most direct way to address this is to find a way to reach IBM's shareholders and find a way to bring this to the board of directors. Very direct, no courts, no politicians, no complaining. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
