PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Injustice For All
April 30th 2000, 12:40 CEST by andy

My parents once told me that the law exists to protect people, and romantic fool that I was back then, I believed them for a while. Nowadays we all know that the only people the law protects are rich white criminals, so stories of injustice rarely make headline news anymore.

Take, for example, the case of a British IT company called AllVoice...



The world-wide market for speech recognition software is estimated for this year to be worth around £2.1bn. Bill Gates has described it as "the future of computers". It's big business now, and it's going to get bigger, so whichever company manages to dominate the market is going to have some very happy shareholders.

In 1980, a small family business called Alltypes was established, dealing in word processing solutions, services and networking. Later, as word processing moved from dedicated systems to PC software, the company expanded into the area of speech recognition, and in 1992 its AllVoice division was formed.

AllVoice made a big splash by pioneering two features that had eluded other companies: For the first time, speech recognition software could be tied directly into third-party word processing packages, and the original dictation could be stored as audio along with the resultant text. The company won an award for innovation from the Confederation of British Industry.

Everything was going well until, in February 1996, IBM began to show an interest.

The industry giant was interested in adding AllVoice's technology to its products, and began negotiations for a world-wide licensing deal. Having allegedly agreed to confidentiality and given assurances that it had no intention of developing similar software of its own, IBM was allowed to see the most up-to-date version of AllVoice's system for appraisal purposes.

The appraisal was positive, but instead of setting AllVoice firmly on the road to international fame and fortune, in April 1996 IBM told the company that it had decided to implement its own version of the innovative features. Two months later an official announcement was made, outlining the software that was planned for release in November and effectively ending any chance of the still-obscure AllVoice successfully marketing its own product.

After various twists and turns, including a brief period when AllVoice managed to regain some ground before being set back again, in 1997 the company registered British and US patents for its technology, including additional, undisclosed innovations.

At this stage, another US tech firm, Dragon Systems, contacted AllVoice and asked for all details of its software to be disclosed. Because Dragon was not willing to sign a confidentiality agreement, and no doubt concerned that Dragon was owned by two ex-IBM employees, AllVoice declined the invitation.

One month later, AllVoice's patent details became publicly available, including information about the recent innovations. The next release of Dragon's software include one of the most valuable proprietary features, despite no payment having been made to AllVoice for licensing rights.

With IBM and Dragon successfully marketing products that contain technology developed and rightfully owned by AllVoice, you could expect the dispute to be settled by a relatively simple court case. Not so.

AllVoice applied in the US for a preliminary injunction against Dragon, which would prevent further marketing of the contentious features until the legal ownership could be ascertained. The initial hearing, to determine the validity of AllVoice's claim, was held in May 1999. Eleven months later, the judge's decision is still pending. Such decisions are usually made within one month.


The ugly reality of this situation is that IBM and Dragon stand accused of stealing proprietary software features, but there's practically nothing that AllVoice can do about it.

If the case ever goes to court, AllVoice will almost certainly not be able to afford the fight. IBM or Dragon could create endless new complications that AllVoice would have to pay its lawyers to deal with. Eventually the money would run out, the case would be lost, and AllVoice would be faced with bankruptcy.

Ironically, AllVoice could earn vast amounts by marketing its proprietary tech - more than enough to fight the case - but is unable to do so while the IBM and Dragon products are still available.

Perhaps the worst part of the story, though, is the apparent lack of concern shown by the US legal system. One can't help but feel that if it were AllVoice which had infringed the property rights of IBM and Dragon, proceedings would have moved with a great deal more urgency.

So what happens next?

This is the sort of case where governments and the legal system can't or won't do much to help, so it often comes down to us, the little guys, to take matters into our own hands and boycott the company. The trouble with that is, as soon as a boycott is in effect, the people who initiate and/or promote it are regarded as fanatical subversives and the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

One of the most concerted boycott campaigns, against the Swiss food company Nestlé, has been in effect since 1977, but the first I heard of it was last year on a late-night satirical TV show.

Nowadays, with consumers sadly acclimatised to the global tenet of trade before truth, a company has to behave remarkably badly for it to become the subject of a boycott; but then, as soon as the backlash starts, it is perceived as a minority issue and the news media won't go near it. It's a win-win situation for any company that sees an opportunity to make big bucks by exploiting small groups of people.

There is a silver lining, though. If everything goes well, the AllVoice case may lead to some positive change, as it has now been championed by Patrick Nicholls, the company's constituency Member of Parliament.

In some markedly strong language, he used his Parliamentary privilege to declare that AllVoice's technology is "being pirated on a grand scale", and that the delay in legal proceedings amounts to "an almost incredible example of procrastination by the United States judiciary".

Summarising the situation, he said: "The way in which American industry has rallied round to carve up AllVoice makes a pack of sharks look like a convention of nuns. It is an utter disgrace. For reasons that are impossible to fathom, the American judicial system, instead of protecting the innocent, has played into the hands of the guilty."

For more information, read the full text of Patrick Nicholls' speech.


Company links:

AllVoice US patent links:

  • 5,799,273 - automated proof-reading using linked words
  • 5,857,099 - dictation with audio messaging

And for the curious, Nestlé links:

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Injustice For All

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Jafd"
2000-04-30 12:56:58
jNOaSPAMfPLEASEd@zombieworld.NOSPAMPLEASE.com http://www.hereticii.com/skull/
I'd be interested to know how ironclad the contract between AllVoice and IBM was in the beginning. Seems to me that was where the battle was lost. Or was it?
#2 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-04-30 13:24:59
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#1</b> "Jafd" wrote...
<QUOTE> I'd be interested to know how ironclad the contract between AllVoice and IBM was in the beginning. Seems to me that was where the battle was lost. Or was it? </QUOTE>

Non-disclosure agreements are not worth the paper they are written on unless you belong to a company with money. To actually combat a NDA breach is incredibly expensive for both parties and the breachers can simply keep appealing throwing up new evidence etc

similar to patents .... did you know using NULL to terminate loops is patented as is fighting in games etc. Patents do increse the value of company thou ... thats about all<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#3 by "G-Man"
2000-04-30 13:40:17
jonmars@earthlink.net http://www.shiftlock.org
In the beginning Andy wrote...
<quote>the only people the law protects are rich white criminals</quote>

Don't you mean rich corporations? When money is involved the law does not discriminate against race.

Anyway all I could think about while reading this is... this affects me how? As an endline consumer I get the full benefit of the technology regardless of who wields it. Sure it's a tough break for the little guy, but then again that is nothing new. Another thing to consider is that laws are tricky things. What is morally 'right' is not necessarily the legal 'right'.

And in some ways this may be for the best. It is in all likelihood possible that IBM while examining AllVoice's technology had already been developing a similar tech. The way you've worded it... it seems as though IBM was first to market.. just not first to patent. There are a number of laws designed to specifically block what I'll loosely term as 'patent jumpers'. People who register patents on products that are already in the marketplace but haven't been patented.. who then claim rights to licencing or royalties to those products. An example is Compuserve who sat on the patent for GIF for a number of years and then when practically everyone had incorporated the technology into their products had suddenly jumped out and said "Hey looks like you all owe us some money."

To be honest even if IBM is in the wrong legally and they are just throwing money and lawyers at the legal system to clog it up for years, I really couldn't care less. They'll probably be able to disseminate the product to the mainstream market with far greater facility than AllVoice ever could have. If little people get crushed under the mighty wheels of progress... then so be it.

 - [g.man]
#4 by "Slick"
2000-04-30 17:09:27
slick@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com
Common sense.. *sigh* it's just so simple.
#5 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-04-30 17:11:58
palutkek@asme.org
<quote> Nowadays we all know that the only people the law protects are rich white criminals . . . </quote>

Well, I'm white . . . Now all I have to do is become rich (preferably through criminal means). :)  Seriously, I think that the 'rich' is important in your statement . . . 'white' and 'criminal' are almost irrelevant.

<quote>An example is Compuserve who sat on the patent for GIF for a number of years and then when practically everyone had incorporated the technology into their products had suddenly jumped out and said "Hey looks like you all owe us some money."</quote>

It's Unisys, not Compuserve who holds the patent in question.  It's a patent on using a compression scheme (LZH maybe?) for compression in an image.

Also, patents may be enforced arbitrarily by their holders (at least in the US).  Legally, you have the right to let your patent go unenforced for years and then selectively start demanding royalties from people who are using it.
#6 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-04-30 18:36:41
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<i>Nowadays we all know that the only people the law protects are rich white criminals, so stories of injustice rarely make headline news anymore.
</i>
Ummm O.J. Simpson anyone??!

Actually, the law anymore only protects the people that can afford its protection. For the most part anyway, I am sure there are some exceptions. Or maybe I am just being cynical.

While not being a lawyer, I can tell you that the justice system in the US, particularly the judicial system, is woefully ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with the technological questions that are being thrown at it these days. Techological advances are simply moving too fast for the slow, plodding, methodical way that the courts operate. It may be that the judge in this case is simply unable or unprepared to make a decision. Or it may be that he has been bought off by IBM and Dragon, and is waiting for it to blow over before he makes a decison. But again, maybe I am just being cynical. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#7 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-04-30 18:41:02
sgt_hulka@yahoo.com http://www.hulka.com
Andy, OJ Simpson definately wasn't white.  I don't think it matter what race, religion, etc.. you are.  The fact that you have gazillions of dollars and can either sway, intimidate, or just pay off judges, lawyers, or members of the jury is our current system of justice.  

Here in the US we have a hillbilly posing as president who doesn't even know what the meaning of is, is.  

I've heard of software companies doing that kind of crap all the time, especially Microsoft.  There's really nothing we can do about it I'm afraid.  To organize grassroot efforts to boycott usually take too long to get the word out, and there are too many sheep in this world who can't see the big picture, or too stupid.  Look who we elected twice!
#8 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-04-30 18:41:51
sgt_hulka@yahoo.com http://www.hulka.com
Damn VeeSpike!  We typed OJ Simpson at the same time, there's something eerie about that.  I'm going to go change my underwear now.
#9 by "Chango"
2000-04-30 18:57:03
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
This is one case out of thousands.

Can you say Microsoft and QDOS?

Although I agree that if IBM did indeed steal the idea, software, technology, and everything else, then somebody should slap their legs BIG TIME; I still have no sympathy for AllVoice Systems for not marketing their product themselves.

Coca Cola began in a shed.  Hewlett Packard began in a shed, the list goes on and on, but they succeeded on their own, in as far as they didn't go to some other company and say, "Hey, we've got a killer product that's going to make millions.  Wanna see?

With most big corps thesedays, the little man doesn't stand a chance if he collaborates with them.  AllVoice walks up to IBM and announces that they have revolutionary software, adn then they're surprised when it gets stolen?

Give me a break.  It's unfair, and it isn't right, but hey - there aren't any friends in business, and anyone going into business should no that already.


-Chango<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "Morgan"
2000-04-30 19:00:48
morgan@stomped.com http://tenfour.stomped.com/
Does anyone know of examples of truly successful boycotts? I can't really think of any.

For instance, when the French banned British beef recently, the press jumped all over it and were, even if only implicitly, calling for a national boycott. It still didn't happen, at least to any significant extent, despite the huge influence that the press usually holds over the ovine British masses.

It's simply too much trouble. People are generally pretty apathetic about most things. Even when the papers manage to stir up public feelings about something, it's forgotten about as soon as it leaves the headlines and any action taken dies away. Unless it personally affects a large number of people, not much is going to get done: see G-Man's comment above.
#11 by "Syco"
2000-04-30 19:18:20
ken@hardnews.org http://www.hardnews.org
Actually back in the 1960s, Martin Luther called for a boycott on the Tennessee? Bus system (I'm probably wrong on the state) because they had mistreated African Americans. So many people followed it and so much money was lost that the government caved in and finally approved a civil rights act that would allow blacks to sit anywhere on the bus.

Boycotts do work it just has to be on a massive scale, and it has to touch the hearts of some people. Business isn't something that affects peoples hearts, people don't have feelings for it. That's why business boycotts won't work unless it's moved to a personal level. Not a patent stealing level
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#12 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-04-30 19:23:23
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
OJ Simpson - living proof that there is racial equality in the courts - or something like that.


<b>#7</b> "Sgt Hulka" wrote...
<QUOTE>Here in the US we have a hillbilly posing as president who doesn't even know what the meaning of is, is.  
</QUOTE>

Is he REALLY a hillbilly? Or is he a hippie POSING as a hillbilly?  I suggest that he poses, knowing full well that if he has walked on the national stage waving peace signs and talking about free love, he would have been laughed back to whatever den of iniquity he slithered out of. We can only hope now that people realise that the human tree that might follow him is just as bad.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "Andy"
2000-04-30 19:30:28
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#9</b>Chango:
<QUOTE>AllVoice walks up to IBM and announces that they have revolutionary software, adn then they're surprised when it gets stolen?</QUOTE>
Wrong way round. AllVoice marketed their software, won an award for innovation, and IBM approached them with a view to licensing.

<b>#11</b>Syco:
<QUOTE>Actually back in the 1960s, Martin Luther called for a boycott on the Tennessee? Bus system (I'm probably wrong on the state)</QUOTE>
Alabama. Just next door. :) It was 1955.
#14 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-04-30 19:57:20
someother@planetaccess.com http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
<b>#10</b> "Morgan" wrote...
<quote><b><i> Does anyone know of examples of truly successful boycotts? I can't really think of any. </i></b></quote>

I think boycotts are lame.  Though I do participate actively in the amazon.com boycott, and am fairly happy to say I've helped move a few thousand dollars in potential business from them to buy.com.
 
as for a successful one, intel has reported that a major reason for them dropping the CPU id from their upcoming chips is a desire to avoid a future boycott based on the one that occurred with their last "chip id" release.
 
 

So, is this not a gaming-related site any more?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "G-Man"
2000-04-30 20:37:15
jonmars@earthlink.net http://www.shiftlock.org
<b>#14</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<quote>So, is this not a gaming-related site any more?</quote>

No it still is.. Andy is just a big fan of Michael Moore/Ralph Nader type consumer advocacy issues, I guess.

I call it sweating the small stuff... battling yuppie inconveniences, when larger political issues are at stake... but whatever floats your boat.

 - [g.man]

Andy is the Jon Katz of <b>PlanetCrap</b>
#16 by "Kirkegard"
2000-04-30 21:13:55
winkelmank@william.jewell.edu
<b>#10</b> "Morgan" wrote...
<QUOTE> Does anyone know of examples of truly successful boycotts? I can't really think of any.

 The Delano grape strike in the 70's was one. It was sustained for something like 5 years, throughout 10 or so major US cities.  But there haven't been many successful boycotts in recent years. I think the 60's and 70's were much more open to the idea of 'civil disobedience.' Today, people are much more complacent.   <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#17 by "Diseased"
2000-04-30 21:15:45
diseasedanaimal@yahoo.com
To those of you using OJ Simpson: Bad example.  OJ Simpson happened to be rich and famous.  He also happened to be black but the former two were what pardoned him.  Blacks are so much more often incarcerated and arrested under suspicion than whites are.  While I do not know the exact numbers, the chances of your being pulled over on suspicion if black is considerably higher than if you are white.  By the statistics, their sentences are typically greater for the same crime.  These may have been the reasons Andy chose to mention race in the post.  

OJ Simpson was an anomaly.  One rich and famous black guy getting off is nowhere close to proof of equality in the legal system.

And what's bugging the heck out of you guys over Clinton?  According to his detractors, under his leadership we should all be headed to hell in a handbasket.  Strange that I don't see this happening.
#18 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-04-30 21:38:17
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#17</b> "Diseased" wrote...
<QUOTE> To those of you using OJ Simpson: Bad example.  OJ Simpson happened to be rich and famous.  He also happened to be black but the former two were what pardoned him.  Blacks are so much more often incarcerated and arrested under suspicion than whites are.  While I do not know the exact numbers, the chances of your being pulled over on suspicion if black is considerably higher than if you are white.  By the statistics, their sentences are typically greater for the same crime.  These may have been the reasons Andy chose to mention race in the post.  
 
 OJ Simpson was an anomaly.  One rich and famous black guy getting off is nowhere close to proof of equality in the legal system.
</QUOTE>
OJ is an anomaly, but not for the reasons that you state. He is an example of how money and power can get you out of trouble in the courts, regardless of race. The point we were trying to make was that race is irrelevant in the courts when money is involved.



<b>#17</b> "Diseased" wrote...
<QUOTE>
And what's bugging the heck out of you guys over Clinton?  According to his detractors, under his leadership we should all be headed to hell in a handbasket.  Strange that I don't see this happening. </QUOTE>

I really don't have anything against Clinton, except for the fact that he is the most corrupt, dishonest, disrespectful, unconscionable person to ever hold the office of US President. Say what you like about the others, but even Nixon had the decency to get clear when he got into trouble. No other US president has been convicted of perjury. No other US president has ever lived under the threat of incarceration after he leaves office. The things that Clinton has done to the US Justice system are going to take YEARS to clear up, and he's going to sit back and laugh through that whole process. He has shown little or no respect for the oath that he took, the laws that he is supposed to uphold, or the office that he currently resides in. The US has gone to war for no other reason than to distract the people from this man's legal problems. He has sold this country down the river more than once for his own personal aggrandizement (see China and Cuba.)

But other than that, he's probably a really great guy, right?

 <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#19 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-04-30 21:41:38
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#18</b> "VeeSPIKE" wrote...
<QUOTE> #17 "Diseased" wrote...
  To those of you using OJ Simpson: Bad example.  OJ Simpson happened to be rich and famous.  He also happened to be black but the former two were what pardoned him.  Blacks are so much more often incarcerated and arrested under suspicion than whites are.  While I do not know the exact numbers, the chances of your being pulled over on suspicion if black is considerably higher than if you are white.  By the statistics, their sentences are typically greater for the same crime.  These may have been the reasons Andy chose to mention race in the post.    
  
  OJ Simpson was an anomaly.  One rich and famous black guy getting off is nowhere close to proof of equality in the legal system.  
  
 OJ is an anomaly, but not for the reasons that you state. He is an example of how money and power can get you out of trouble in the courts, regardless of race. The point we were trying to make was that race is irrelevant in the courts when money is involved.</QUOTE>

And you just said that didn't you. Going to bed now....
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "szcx"
2000-04-30 21:50:07
leslie.nassar@dot-at-dot.com http://www.dot-at-dot.com
So big business is opportunistic and amoral?  Wow.  That's a suprise.  Of course, it has nothing to do with the nationality of the target *cough*Go Corporation*cough*

I wonder, if roles were reversed, whether the British (or French, or Australian, or Uzbekistani) legal systems would treat foreign companies with equality... somehow, I doubt it.

Maybe the solution is to abolish borders then establish a one-world goverment and judicial system? ;)
#21 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-01 00:34:57
sdk@rosenet.net http://www.unrealuniverse.com
Veespike: "OJ is an anomaly, but not for the reasons that you state. He is an example of how money and power can get you out of trouble in the courts, regardless of race. The point we were trying to make was that race is irrelevant in the courts when money is involved."


I disagree, if you watched the trial you'd know race was a very big part of O.J. getting off. Hell, I believe Johnny Cochran - to this day credits O.J. being black to his acquital. The man was guilty as sin, but because of comments made by one <b>single racist cop</b> 15 years ago, his punishment for ending 2 innocent people's lives in a grotesque gruesome way, is playing golf every day.

How goes the search for the real killers O.J.? I think I saw some suspicious activity past the bunker on the 14th hole.

The O.J. Simpson case was "black America" unifying against "white America", I'm not racist - I grew up playing basketball (a "black" sport) with "black" people every single day. But that is what it was.

O.J. getting off had every bit as much to do with the color of his skin as the amount of money in his pocket.
#22 by "lechifre"
2000-05-01 01:08:47
user@casinoroyale.softnet.co.uk
Examples of successfull boycotts

How about Shell oil and that obsolete oil platform Brent Spar? Shell wanted to sink the platform at sea. After the greens and press got hold of that, the boycotts and protests outside the Shell petrol stations caved the Shell board within days. ( The UK govt. who were prepared to support Shell to the hilt were furious at Shell after they caved so quickly. )

GM food anyone? When the press got hold of the green angle on this one, they shafted Monsanto et all good and proper. The GM corporations were much bigger players than Shell in my eyes, and really brought much more political clout to bear, but the public outcry over the safety fears of GM foodstuffs led to some very interesting outcomes.
Client food corporations ( like Pizza Hut, McDs, and Iceland supermarket ) were so afraid of the public backlash toward GM food affecting their business, that they as foodbuyers actively boycotted GM foostuffs ( and used their GM boycott as a positive marketing message to consumers ). I don't know of any other instance of consumer pressure that has led to COMPANIES boycotting other companies.

I both the above cases, the press was a major factor for two reasons, firstly raising pubic awareness of the issues, and secondly reporting the strength of feeling of public concern resulting from the initial press reports. In both cases ( especially the Brent Spar ) there were serious flaws in the arguments, and in the best traditions of journalism, fact and reason were overwhelemed by unsubstantiated emotion.

My point? Consumer boycotts can work, but only realy with the help of the press. Without widescale popular awareness and support over a moral issue, these issues will always come second to business interests.
 Does the fact that poor journalism and inappropriate media hype swung the day in favour of the correct moral stance excuse the manner in which it was achieved?
 Does the end result justlfy the means?
#23 by "wabut"
2000-05-01 02:34:45
wabut@yahoo.com http://madownage.cjb.net
Off Topic (But this is really really important) : KINGS WIN!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
#24 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-01 02:40:53
sdk@rosenet.net http://www.unrealuniverse.com
wabut: The Western Conference is going to own this year, there's not a single team in the eastern half that can compete with Jazz, let alone the Lakers and the Blazers. Thank god Michael Jordan retired. :)
#25 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-01 02:41:46
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#21</b> "Seth Krieg" wrote...
<QUOTE>I disagree, if you watched the trial you'd know race was a very big part of O.J. getting off. Hell, I believe Johnny Cochran - to this day credits O.J. being black to his acquital. The man was guilty as sin, but because of comments made by one single racist cop 15 years ago, his punishment for ending 2 innocent people's lives in a grotesque gruesome way, is playing golf every day.
 
How goes the search for the real killers O.J.? I think I saw some suspicious activity past the bunker on the 14th hole.
 
The O.J. Simpson case was "black America" unifying against "white America", I'm not racist - I grew up playing basketball (a "black" sport) with "black" people every single day. But that is what it was.
 
 O.J. getting off had every bit as much to do with the color of his skin as the amount of money in his pocket.</QUOTE>

Hey, only 20 posts and we are off-topic. not a record, I know, but still...



Race was only the tool that they used. If he had not had millions of dollars to spend hiring lawyers to abuse the process, he would be rotting in a jail cell tossing salads as we speak. Race would not have been an issue had money not been available to make it one.  

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#26 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-01 03:07:54
someother@planetaccess.com http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
<b>#18</b> "VeeSPIKE" wrote...
<quote><b><i> I really don't have anything against Clinton, except for the fact that he is the most corrupt, dishonest, disrespectful, unconscionable person to ever hold the office of US President. Say what you like about the others, but even Nixon had the decency to get clear when he got into trouble. No other US president has been convicted of perjury. No other US president has ever lived under the threat of incarceration after he leaves office. The things that Clinton has done to the US Justice system are going to take YEARS to clear up, and he's going to sit back and laugh through that whole process. He has shown little or no respect for the oath that he took, the laws that he is supposed to uphold, or the office that he currently resides in. The US has gone to war for no other reason than to distract the people from this man's legal problems. He has sold this country down the river more than once for his own personal aggrandizement (see China and Cuba.)  </i></b></quote>


Wow, that's about as distorted a view as I've ever seen on anything.
 

Clinton saying he didn't have sex with monica (which he didn't) while his wife is standing behind him is worse than Reagan giving weapons illegally to iran in exchange for hostages..?
 
Whether or not clinton was getting his wick waxed by a fat intern chick isn't the kind of thing that hundreds of millions should be spent on finding out.   Whether or not you are giving weapons to the countries biggest enemies, that might be a little relevant,  but lying about that seems to be ok.

How many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have the republicans wasted in their attempts to try and bring him down with bogus charges?  
 
If Clinton was smart, he'd find a way to get the republicans back who have continuously charged him with bogus charge after bogus charge, which he is innocent of all of them, for no other purpose than to try and get political gain and attempt to prevent him from doing his job.
 
 

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-01 03:10:29
sdk@rosenet.net http://www.unrealuniverse.com
I didn't say his money didn't allow it, I said that him being black had just as much to do with his acquital as his money. So I guess we're both wildly agreeing on the same point, we just have the shortcoming of electronic communication to once more thank for getting our wires crossed.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the figure who was used as a rallying point for an entire race (O.J.) had previously represented the antithesis of the entire Civil Rights movement? Outside of Will Smith or Bryant Gumble, I doubt there was a more "white" black person in the American Spotlight than O.J. Simpson, I mean - he was an anchor for the NFL on NBC (National Football League on the No Blacks Channel).

I mean, if people had stopped to think about it, how much had O.J. done for 'his people' before and since the verdict. Nothing. Not a god-damned thing. He has been too worried about what his white friends in Beverly Hills had been thinking about him tor worry about 'finding the real killers'.
#28 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-01 03:18:39
someother@planetaccess.com http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
Most of the people who supported OJ during the trial, now feel he is guilty.
 
Ironically, though they didn't mind him killing his wife, the fact he is now dating another white woman (how stupid is that chick?) was unacceptable to them.
 
I'm just curious if he will ever admit to doing it, he can't be tried again, right?
 
I'd guess he has convinced himself that he didn't do it, and really believes himself when he says he didn't.
 
How ironic is it that Mark Fuhrman had his life ruined by this more than OJ did?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "Craig Lewin"
2000-05-01 04:00:02
craigl@globalnet.co.uk http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~craigl/
Just in case you guys don't have your auto-update enabled, <a href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~craigl/">CrapSpy</a> beta 2 is out.

It's only a quick update, just to finish off features I wasn't really done with.

1. Post Preview.
2. Quoting with selected text only.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "HiredGoons"
2000-05-01 04:49:17
gavriel@freedom.net
<b>#26</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<QUOTE>Whether or not you are giving weapons to the countries biggest enemies, that might be a little relevant</QUOTE>

Nitpicking: Iran was hardly America's biggest enemy at the time.  The USSR was enormously more concerning.  Much of the strategy re: Nicaragua and Iraq/Iran if not all of Reagan's foreign policy was based with an eye toward how events would play in Moscow.  Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Libya, China,Cuba Afghanistan, much of Africa were neither enemies or allies in any traditional sense.  Because each of those nations could quickly switch (and they did, just ask Saddam Hussein - he was our best friend in the Middle East after Israel and Egypt in the 80s, then in 1990 ) from the "enemy" column to the "ally" column depending on solely whether or not the switch would favor us or hinder the USSR.

Schultze, Casey and some other big wigs in the Reagan Administration decided to trade arms with Iran because relations with them had been recently turning warmer.  Israel (another "sworn enemy" of Iran) had actually approached the US because it was thinking of selling some arms to Iran too.  It makes for a very complicated picture, and it was certainly illegal, but then again so is about every covert operation ever planned.  

RE: Clinton and bogus charges/innocence

Clinton shares at least one trait with OJ -- they both got away with it.  He perjured himself and solicited perjury from Betty Curry, to name two crimes he committed.  Judge Susan Webber Wright has found him in contempt of court, but has not yet handed down her penalty (likely she's waiting until he leaves office).

A more spiteful person might say Clinton wasted millions of dollars by having his government lawyers and luminaries such as Donna Shalala, Madeleine Albright and Mike Curry to name a few spend hundreds of hours lying to the American public.  Those folks are all paid by taxpayers, and Clinton told them to go out and spread lies and attack anyone who said otherwise.  That's malfeasance, but the Senate (just like OJ's jury) was unpersuaded.

Reagan's lawlessness at least had to do with a public policy goal, disagree with it if you want(Congress couldn't decide either, they changed the Boland Amendment three times in two years).  Clinton's disregard for the law was no grander than his own penis.

Lest anyone get the idea I'm a Reaganite, Reagan's law-breaking is hardly the worst thing he did.  The most outrageous thing (and comparable to Clinton's in my view, because it speaks to a gigantic error in judgement) was the involvement of Nancy's astrologer in the timing of public policy initiatives.  That isn't illegal, but in my view, it was impeachable conduct.  
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "Diseased"
2000-05-01 08:13:54
diseasedanaimal@yahoo.com
First on Clinton...yes, perhaps the fact that he perjured does make him impeachable.  That doesn't in and of itself make him a bad president.  The economy is better off since he has taen office.  That may or may not be attributable to his administration but we certainly didn't see anything resembling an improvement of this magnitude in the Reagan, Bush, or (laugh) Carter years.  

On the OJ trial-- OJ was an example of the rich being able to buy their freedom.  However not a symbol of equality in our courts as was mentioned.  The race card was played, but OJ was lucky he had that the money to buy himself an excellent lawyer.  He also had fame-- if the Jurors weren't so heavily sequestered they probably would have jumped on public opinion against OJ and nailed him.  But he probably retained the National hero status that the rest of us had for OJ before the White Bronco chase in the Jurors' eyes.

Bad_CRC, Mark Fuhrman's life is far from worse tham OJ's.  He's been getting breaks all over the place.  The History Channel has used him as a source in a few of their pieces not related to the OJ trial.  More recently MSNBC is interviewing him in their investigation of a Kennedy case.  He may have gotten his notoriety as a racist but it doesn't seem to be hurting him too much.  I doubt any show would give OJ two seconds of talk time, let alone use him for a full blown interview.  The media is considered a pretty good reflection of public acceptance of a personality, and there is no doubt that the public would rather they had Mark as a neigbor than OJ, and with good reason.  Mark may not be the best guy to have as a neightbor but at least he's going to be investigating murders, not committing them.
#32 by "Supertanker"
2000-05-01 08:23:04
bwohlenb@iwon.com
<QUOTE>The most outrageous thing (and comparable to Clinton's in my view, because it speaks to a gigantic error in judgement) was the involvement of Nancy's astrologer in the timing of public policy initiatives. That isn't illegal, but in my view, it was impeachable conduct.</QUOTE>

I have a thing I would like to test, but it requires becoming President.  If any of you get elected, give this a try.

First, set up a goat pen on the White House lawn, somewhere in plain view.  Fill it with goats, and then every few days, have one secretly removed.  Send them to a nice farm where they can live a happy, well-fed life.

After a while, people will start to notice there are fewer goats, and some reporter will ask where they are going.  Respond that when you hit a tough policy issue, you have a shaman on staff, and he kills one of the goats and reads its entrails in order to provide you with direction.

Now comes the test part.  My theory is that there will be a huge public outcry, but not because you are using a shaman and goat entrails to guide the nation's policy.  There will be an outcry because you are being cruel to the goats (despite no evidence of any actual harm).  At this point, you are probably justified in declaring martial law, permanently, because the body public has proven itself too dumb to rule itself.
#33 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-01 14:05:39
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#26</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<QUOTE>Wow, that's about as distorted a view as I've ever seen on anything. </QUOTE>

How so?

<b>#26</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<QUOTE>Clinton saying he didn't have sex with monica (which he didn't) while his wife is standing behind him is worse than Reagan giving weapons illegally to iran in exchange for hostages..? </QUOTE>

I am not going to get into an English parsing argument, but the problem with Monica was not the he had sex with her, it was that he lied about it in court, and allowed others to do the same in his name. Perjury and subourning perjury are both felonies, for which he has been convicted, and if the Senate had any balls at all, he would have been removed from office for it. Clinton got away with it because he and the media were successful in convincing a lot of people that it was about sex, and not about the perjury. And lets not forget that the Independant Counsel is STILL working on this and other things, namely the various -Gate scandals, and are saying that they plan to seek indictments after he leaves office. Too damn late in my opinion, but I understand why they are waiting.

<b>#26</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<QUOTE>If Clinton was smart, he'd find a way to get the republicans back who have continuously charged him with bogus charge after bogus charge, which he is innocent of all of them, for no other purpose than to try and get political gain and attempt to prevent him from doing his job. </QUOTE>

He's been convicted of perjury, which is lying under oath in a court of law. With that in mind, how can you trust any claims he makes to innocence of the other crimes in which he has been accused.

<b>#31</b> "Diseased" wrote...
<QUOTE>That doesn't in and of itself make him a bad president. The economy is better off since he has taen office. That may or may not be attributable to his administration but we certainly didn't see anything resembling an improvement of this magnitude in the Reagan, Bush, or (laugh) Carter years. </QUOTE>

The current economic largess, which the Justice department is busy trying to kill, began during the Reagan administration, mostly due to the reduction in capital gains and top marginal tax rates. It stalled briefly towards the end of the Bush administration, and restarted the climb that it is on now during Clinton's second year. Clinton has had very little to do with the current economic expansion, and is somewhat responsible for holding it back. Alan Greenspan keeps raising the cost of money in order to protect the national debt from rising inflation. Every time the interest rate goes up, the economy has to work a little harder to make money.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-01 15:34:32
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
The real way we can punish OJ is to make him president.
 
I don't think that even he deserves that kind of punishment.
#35 by "El Asso Wipo"
2000-05-01 16:15:17
dickcheese@hotmail.com http://www.bluesnews.com
"Clinton is a scumbag" - Dan Burton
#36 by "David Long"
2000-05-01 16:23:07
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
LOL Supertanker!

Right on there. The country would certainly be up in arms about the killing of the goats and not that you were reading entrails. Who cares about policy when goat's lives are at stake!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "El Asso Wipo"
2000-05-01 16:46:36
dickcheese@hotmail.com http://www.bluesnews.com
Save the Whales! Collect the whole set!!!

Free Tibet - When you buy one at regular price!

Rosie O'Donnell is a big fat lesbian whore pig from hell.
#38 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-01 19:13:27
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
Forgive me for jumping back on topic:

"One can't help but feel that if it were AllVoice which had infringed the property rights of IBM and Dragon, proceedings would have moved with a great deal more urgency."

If you're trying to tie in a "US company vs UK company bias", I doubt it...the legal system is just fundamentally flawed.  If your alluding to the "Rich corporation vs. Small company bias" then I'd have to agree.

Based on the facts you presented, there really isn't much to debate - AllVoice got screwed.  Despite the fact that it was due to their own naive actions, they should have been vindicated long before now.

The one remaining problem is: Did IBM or Dragon break the law?  It's entirely possible that they were operating withing the law, even though what they did was fundamentally wrong.

The one bright spot in this whole thing is that voice-recognition software is still in it's early stages...if AllVoice can get SOME sort of justice in the next year or two, they COULD leverage that with their new innovations and become a VERY strong presence in this field.

Until I get some conflicting information, I'm more than happy to boycott IBM and Dragon...but I won't make much of a difference as I don't have any use for products made by either of them.

If MP's are now speaking up on their behalf, I'd say AllVoice may finally be on the road to resolution.

-Valeyard
#39 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-05-01 19:59:18
rhiggi@home.com
Hmmm, I disagree with the opinion that AllVoice got screwed because of thier own carelessness.  If they really did have a NDA with IBM, they had every right to expect IBM to comply.  I deal with quite a few different companies in my line of work (controlls programmer) and theres always a NDA in effect.  I'm not saying everyone adheres to them, obviously they don't, but I can't see anything wrong with AllVoice expecting IBM to adhere to it.  Nothing would ever get done if you couldn't expect that.

V
#40 by "Andy"
2000-05-01 20:16:42
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#39</b>, Vengeance[CoD]:
<QUOTE>Hmmm, I disagree with the opinion that AllVoice got screwed because of thier own carelessness.  If they really did have a NDA with IBM, they had every right to expect IBM to comply.</QUOTE>

Alas, I fear the NDA was more of a gentlemen's agreement. I've not been able to find out for certain, but based on the 'careful' language surrounding the NDA, I don't think it was written.
#41 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-01 21:49:24
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
If there was an NDA, I suspect that it was rather vague.  If it was "iron-clad", IBM wouldn't have been able to get away with this...or at least the court decision wouldn't take so long.

It seems obvious that the NDA was questionable, at best, and that IBM probably exploited a loophole.

The problem with technology issues like this is that if the solution is the "next logical step", or if there are two solutions that produce the same results...you can easily get around the NDA.  Which is where the "naive" comment came from.  If you've got a great idea for a new feature, it's probably best to keep it fairly quiet.  If you've found a way to implement that feature, you should DEFINITELY keep it quiet...showing someone how you did it might easily prompt them to come up with an alternate method...which may even be better.

-Valeyard
#42 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-05-02 02:02:20
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#41</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>If there was an NDA, I suspect that it was rather vague. If it was "iron-clad", IBM wouldn't have been able to get away with this...or at least the court decision wouldn't take so long.
...
Which is where the "naive" comment came from. If you've got a great idea for a new feature, it's probably best to keep it fairly quiet. If you've found a way to implement that feature, you should DEFINITELY keep it quiet...showing someone how you did it might easily prompt them to come up with an alternate method...which may even be better.
-Valeyard </QUOTE>

Ahh, but thats the kicker.  If I'm a small company with no money and I have this cool idea, I just need a little cash, where am I going to go?  To either private backers (risky), or perhaps a larger company with money. We could have some sort of partnership.  Hey great idea, just make sure its not IBM.  I agree with you on basically everything your saying, its just that a small company is in a catch 22.  Cant develope a product without help, cant really trust anyone to help you with some sort of agreement.  I know NDAs are worthless, all contracts are if you dont have the resources to fight a large company.  The law tends to support those who have the money (yet another reason to hate lawyers in general).  They should have been more carefull, having limited resourses or overeager marketing can get you fed to the sharks occasionally, but they may not have had much of a choice.  Anyone could have pulled the same stunt on them.  Heh, I bet their NDAs are tough as nails now though :-)

V<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-02 17:06:35
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
"Heh, I bet their NDAs are tough as nails now"

Yeah, it sucks and it's "unfair", but THIS is exactly how you learn about these things.  You get a good scalding burn and say, "hey, it burns when I do that."

I'm not saying they don't deserve to be vindicated by the law, they certainly do...but, in the real world, you learn to expect this...it's the cruel reality of the "real world".

-Valeyard
 "I want to move to theory, everything works in theory."
#44 by "None-1a"
2000-05-03 06:13:50
none1a@home.com
This sounds a little like what Apple did to to Zerox with the MacOs (and latter what Microsoft did to Apple with Mac OS, really odd how that happend twice with the same product). Zerox is sitting on the whole GUI thing with there PAR group, then comes along Job's and get him self and his team invited to see it, to latter begin developing his own system. Job's invites Gate's over to take a look at his cool new system only to have it taken from him as well.

Both Zerox and Apple had things they wanted to gain out of it (Zerox wanted to get the PAR system to market with out having to deal with system development and production, and Apple wanted to get some software with out sinking development money on it), and both got f**ed over big time. Just goes to show you the computer biz had always been under handed and will continue to be untill some judge makes a desision on the patented idea and the copywriten software, just because the ideas are the same doesn't mean the code is the same, and this is where the chalange is. What gets over ruled one companies patent on the ideas or another companies code.

It's be interesting to see if any of the acctual code is the same between the three products.
#45 by "Seven Tacos"
2000-05-05 23:30:30
kurto@asgaard.usu.edu
<I>The ugly reality of this situation is that IBM and Dragon stand accused of stealing proprietary software features, but there's practically nothing that AllVoice can do about it.</i>

This story stinks of injustice, but can a feature really be proprietary? If Dragon is violating the patented technology then sue them. If it's a clear case then you will be able to find a law firm that is willing on commission. However if it's merely an implementation of the same feature then I don't see a case here. Yes it sucks to be innovative and lose out, but marketting is part of the life cycle of a product. If IBM/Dragon are out marketting the competition then they deserve to win in a this economy.
#46 by "John Mitchell"
2000-10-10 11:14:47
john@allvoice.co.uk http://www.allvoice.co.uk
This story about my firm was alerted to me only today.  

For those interested in what is happening publicly at present check out http://www.allvoice.co.uk/existingAllVoiceSite/allvoiceontheweb.htm

For the record, AllVoice did produce and market the features most successfully until such time as users were forced to obtain them within IBM and Dragon's own products.  

Following anti-competitive behaviour from IBM on top of their abuse of our features, we filed a formal complaint with the European Commission in December 1997.  For example, IBM still withholds a license to use its speech engine technology unless AllVoice agree to a unique abusive clause covering our patents. Final submissions are due in the very near future.  For more information about IBM and anti-competitive behaviour can I suggest you purchase the book "Big Blue: IBM's Use and abuse of power" written by Richard T Delamarter who is ex-DoJ.  

We filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Dragon in February 1999 and this case also remains ongoing.  An injunction motion aimed at immediately preventing Dragon from widespread distribution of a new infringing version - Dragon NaturallySpeaking version 5, is now with the Court and as before, awaits a decision.

Dragon was subsequently acquired by Lernout & Hauspie and we understand the current SEC formal fraud investigation against L&H also involves L&H's failure to report AllVoice's patent litigation during the acquisition process.

Suppressing innovators and/or competition offers no long term benefit to consumers.
#47 by LPMiller
2005-05-19 01:58:21
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
Hi.

When LP says he's bringing Armageddon, he brings fucking Armageddon. - Caryn, 6/01/2004
#48 by Dumdeedum
2005-05-19 02:07:54
http://www.dumdeedum.com
'sup.

#49 by LPMiller
2005-05-19 03:28:01
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
nutin.

When LP says he's bringing Armageddon, he brings fucking Armageddon. - Caryn, 6/01/2004
#50 by Dumdeedum
2005-05-19 04:10:56
http://www.dumdeedum.com
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                            Budweiser                                |
|                             T R U E .                               |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                                                                     |
|                         www.budweiser.com                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+


C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Injustice For All

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]