Seven States Pile On To Block AT&T/T-Mobile Deal 152
An anonymous reader writes "New York, California, and five other U.S. states have joined a lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice that would block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. 'The revised filing comes ahead of a court hearing next week, when the two sides are scheduled to discuss the prospects of a settlement. AT&T has said that it will contest the Justice Department's lawsuit, while also seeking a potential settlement.' CNet notes that 'States don't have the power to block the deal, but they can influence the federal regulators and make it more onerous if AT&T attempts to negotiate for concessions to close the deal. They can also slow down the process with their own lawsuits.'"
This is a no-brainer (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I detest government interference in business, I hope that these anti-trust lawsuits are successful. This is exactly the sort of thing that the anti-trust laws were intended to prevent. Given the resources ($$$) of AT&T, I expect strong lobbying and eventual approval of the deal.
JSL
Re:This is a no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I find it hard to believe that GSM is not patent encumbered. My impression was that the lack of being hard-tied to a device was what made it so popular in Europe (what with their quaint notion of Consumer Rights) and it spread from there (and has grown by inertia to everywhere CDMA is as well.)
Re:Where was the love? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who do I write (Score:3, Insightful)
"whom" is dead. Even the textbooks admit that "who" is acceptable (even if not correct or recommended) for the objective case. We have a descriptive language, and as such, you are wrong.
What you say is technically correct but you miss the point. Like most people who miss a good point that says a lot about our culture, you're suddenly concerned with some technical way to give a "pass". So be it.
... 'who' is listed as 'acceptable' so I'll never have to rub two brain cells together and really master my own native language. I found a way to avoid all those horrible milliseconds of thought. Cool." They probably also say things like "man, mediocrity and anti-intellectualism are wonderful, nothing is ever worth exploring or discovering or learning about after all, and I'm really fulfilled as a human being spiritually." Okay, so they never say that last one but they think that's a coincidence.
The difference is actually useful. If you witness someone correctly using "whom", you can bet serious money that they are educated and actually read a book once in a while. The average person is intellectually lazy and can't understand why anyone would read a book without being forced to by a teacher, professor, or employer. This is particularly true of any book written above the 4th-grade reading level that newspapers and advertisers target.
Ergo, they say "hmm
Anyway, the correct use of "whom" naturally tends to distinguish the thinking man from the sheep who need to be herded. The latter avoid learning and thinking as much as they can. They only do it if the cost of it is less than the consequence imposed by failing some external requirement. Even then, they do it reluctantly and only to the minimum degree necessary to appease the authority figure in question. Anyone who isn't part of this crowd stands out instantly.