Posted 3:53 PM (0) comments

There's another one born every minute....

PeopleSoft CEO Craig Conway seems to think that not only are his stockholders idiots, but so are his customers. In a move designed to ward off losing his job, Conway promised customers buying PeopleSoft product before the end of the quarter that they could possibly get refunds 3 to 5 times what they paid for the software - should the company be sold and "dramatic changes" take place to PeopleSoft's products or services during the next two years. ("PeopleSoft deals could obligate Oracle to refund $354 million").

I can see buying a different brand of corn flakes because the prize in the box is a lottery ticket - but enterprise software? Anyone buying PeopleSoft licenses thinking that he'll eventually be worth 3 times the cost shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a keeper. This 'contract' wouldn't survive a court challenge as to competency of the PeopleSoft officers.

Either Conway thinks his stockholders are too dumb to see what a bad deal Oracle is offering (his opinion), or he's afraid they will see exactly how good a deal Larry Ellison is putting on the table (my opinion). Either way, though, Conway's bottom line is what's good for Craig Conway, not for PeopleSoft's stockholders nor, for that matter, for PeopleSoft's customers.

Posted 9:24 AM (0) comments

Aaargh!

Not even the California Supreme Court understands what the first amendment's "free speech" provisions are! Newspapers all over the country are carrying stories similar to this one in USA Today: "California Supreme Court says anti-Intel e-mail not trespassing."

But a private individual or corporation is not enjoined by the first amendment, only the government is. It is stated that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" nor "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [emphasis added]

"Congress" and "the government", mind you, not Intel!

Its rare that two lower courts get a verdict right only to be overturned by a state's highest court who should be expected to be more knowledgeable about the law, but it does happen - it has happened.

What this verdict means is that no organization in the state of California can block unwanted email to their site as long as they can not demonstrate significant loss. That's wrong.


AS a US citizen, you have a right to express your views and opinions but you also have the right to NOT listen to others expressing their views and opinions. The right to speak has a concomitant freedom to listen and the California Supreme Court has now removed Intel's freedom to listen and that, simply, is wrong.

Posted 8:59 AM (0) comments

Spam and Vitriol

Interesting column in today's Mercury News by Eric Goldman, assistant professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, in which he maintains that Spam is just a byproduct of our media-saturated world.

Goldman asks, "The discourse level in the spam 'debate'' has reached a vitriolic low. The message is clear: People hate spam. But why? Why do people hate spam so much?" And this is, indeed, the meat of the argument. Its not that anyone outside of the spammers thinks that untargeted junk e-mail is a "good thing", but that there are so many wild-eyed anti-spam zealots who refuse to listen to any reasonable solution. You know the people I mean, the ones who claim that they should only receive e-mail from people they know. They apparently gloss over the fact that this makes it impossible for anyone to ever actually send an email, since no one comes into this world with an established electronic 'relationship'.

Its this level of vitriol which, more than anything else, makes solving the real spam problem so hard.