decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
But they did lie | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Its the 'utilitarian' view
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM EST
On the one hand, you have the utilitarians, who believe that the (social) costs
of producing alcohol and cigarettes might be worth the profit margins.

Same as with patents and those non-technical business types...

On the one hand, you have the utilitarians, who believe that the costs of
(software) patenting might be worth the benefits of patent trolling (for the
troll).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What you're missing
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 01:55 PM EST
is the allegations that the tobacco companies used "fake science" to
claim that smoking was safe, or at least that it was not proven dangerous.

Yes people do have "a duty of care" as UK law puts it to look after
their health, but they have the right to be given "an informed
choice". If they are subjected - by the manufacturers - to a steady barrage
of interested mis-information, then yes the manufacturers SHOULD be sanctioned,
and severely at that.

"Everybody knew" - well the manufacturers were involved in an
orchestrated attempt to deceive everybody. If people can't be bothered to find
out for themselves, then that's their fault. But if others set out deliberately
to deceive, then they need to be held liable.

I just wish MS would be sanctioned far harder for all the deliberate bugs and
stuff they put in Windows to damage their competitors' reputations.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

But they did lie
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 02:04 PM EST
They lied to the public, to Congress and to the Judiciary.

They knowingly sold an addictive substance, using advertising
aimed at juveniles.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge orders tobacco companies to say they lied
Authored by: odysseus on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST
Alcoholism *is* a disease. There is a big difference between having a
"drinking problem" and clinical alcoholism which has physiological as
well as psychological causes.

The tobacco companies actively lied and campaigned to mislead and hide evidence.
If the clinical evidence had come out earlier then earlier attempts to educate
people and reduce smoking would have saved countless lives.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )