Microsoft and Yahoo

With Microsoft's history dealing in federal monopoly charges in the past, it appears the software giant is attempting to acquire Yahoo! Inc., which is what is desperately needs in order to compete with online-king Google. The potential deal has been discussed pretty often in the news, with Microsoft's initial offer pegged at $47.5 billion dollars described as an inadequate number by Yahoo's shareholders. Microsoft is a large, and very very rich company, even just using this figure to judge by. After months of negotiation, it appears that any chance of a deal has disappeared. Apparently the two companies could never come to an agreement for a final sale price, which was a staggering figure. Obviously, during all of these negotiations, Google was not very happy at the potential MS-Yahoo deal. There's no question that Google is the reigning champ of online ad revenue, generated through its search engine and its status as a powerful application service provider. Personally, I think the MS-Yahoo deal would've only provided a short boost in MS's status, as Google's massive user base and its commitment to simplicity would likely overcome any threat by a MS-Yahoo behemoth. Furthermore, I'm surprised that more talk of monopolization wasn't found during the negotiations, as MS has had its fair share of issues in that department. Regardless, with the deal dead, Microsoft must continue to find a way to cut into Google's massive revenue. There are some things that money can't buy.

Siemens and its new Procurement System

Siemens has recently adopted a new procurement system which aims to streamline purchases through its vendors and suppliers. The system is entirely electronic, eliminating the need for redundant paperwork and frustrating loss of time. Users who wish to join the Click2procure system must integrate the new purchasing system into their back-office legacy systems. This does not come cheaply or easily, and Siemens has set up contractor GPL to integrate purchasing systems. It is important to note that new users of the system can reduce costs by only using the new standard exchange. Although, the risk obviously increases if a local business foregoes its old purchasing system in favor of Click2procure’s. Whenever a major change in the way a company operates is rolled out, an inevitable change in corporate culture occurs. In this case, the fact that local companies would be dropped in favor of national powerhouses may affect the culture in a negative way. Although the overall outcome is less money spent and overall efficiency, the downsides may affect the company more than they had anticipated.

Net neutrality battle still being waged

In today's CNews article, we learn that the debate over keeping the internet free from commercial constraints rages on. On Tuesday, Democrats in the Senate argued for the formation of a law which would prohibit the main players who control broadband from creating a so-called "fast lane". This "fast lane" would be reserved throughout especially set aside for high-paying corporate sponsors and content deliverers. A lot of the debate stems around whether the Federal Communications Commission even has the authority to impose such a rule upon broadband carriers. Arguing against the big broadband carriers were Democratic leaders such as John Kerry, who is one of the supporters of a bill known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. It certainly looks to be a long, drawn out debate as the major corporate players and their Republican supporters plan to defend their right to carve up the internet as they please.

Google to Push Privacy Initiatives in U.S.

This article essentially paints Google in a very favorable position regarding online privacy. The search engine apparently takes privacy extremely seriously, going so far as to embed privacy lawyers right within product teams, to ensure that the issue is taken into consideration at every step of the way. Nicole Wong, Google’s deputy general counsel outlined the three main concerns which the company has focused on: “transparency of privacy policies, security of data and user choice, and control over how data is used”. Google also hosted a meeting which brought several companies together with the intention on drawing a consensus on privacy issues, with the end goal of getting a privacy bill passed in the United States Congress. The fact that Google is legitimately taking privacy as seriously as it appears to be is really refreshing, as Google is responsible for literally millions of people’s personal information, which it uses to customize advertisements accordingly. Google is also supporting the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s work on privacy principles, which for example cite the need for web sites to “provide clear and prominent statements that data is being collected to provide targeted ads”. This is obviously relevant to Google’s activities, and it’s another positive sign that the company is embracing such suggestions.

Nuremberg Files

First Amendment protection on the web is definitely something that will be coming to the forefront of our attention again and again in the future. It’s such a shady gray area – how much should freedom of speech be protected on the web when it begins to involve very sensitive information and the possibility of real lives being hurt? The Nuremberg Files is an example of a website which revealed extremely personal information on the whereabouts of abortion doctors, which was updated as pro-life extremists took measures to injure or kill them. This is such a tough issue, as it involves people who are extremely passionate about an issue, and have gone to great lengths to promote their views. However, I think that Neal Horsley, the creator of the website, should be held responsible for putting the personal information on his website. The fact that this information was used for the purpose of injuring or potentially killing people even further supports this. Horsley’s website has no place on the internet, as it openly promotes violence and gives the tools (in this case, sensitive information) to do so.

Online Law Schools

It was inevitable. As major undergraduate universities began to offer coursework over the internet, it should not have come as a surprise that post-undergraduate academic institutions would also follow suit. Concord Law School claims to offer its students a high-quality legal education utilizing the rich content delivery that the internet has to offer. Examples of this include video lectures and live online classes which (somehow) are supposed to stimulate active participation. I really see no harm in this, and I can almost guarantee there will be many more to follow. Tuition costs are only worth as much as the university's credibility in providing a high quality education and a degree which retains marketability in our super-competitive economy. It remains to be seen exactly how an employer would look upon an applicant whose resume includes a degree from an online law university. All I'm saying is that for those whose lifestyles deter them from going to a traditional type of law school, I see no harm in attaining a degree via an online university. As our world gets busier and busier, there will no doubt be a larger number of such schools which will keep competition high amongst them, ensuring accreditation and a good shot at attaining a job in the law profession.

The Future of JuicyCampus

The recent focus on the web-based college campus trash-talking site, JuicyCampus, is not surprising to me at all. This is because I had heard about it from my girlfriend, whose roommate had been "featured" not-so adoringly by an anonymous poster whom proceeded to tear the girl apart. The AP article Professor Katsh sent to us mentioned that Pepperdyne University wanted to ban JuicyCampus from its network. This is absolutely silly in my opinion. Trash talk has been present in various forms for as long as humans could communicate. I'm only surprised it took this long for a web-based medium to pop up and fill the passive aggressive needs of America's college students. I can imagine that JuicyCampus is making a great deal of money based on their advertising based revenue model. So, should JuicyCampus be forced to revise itself and/or be held accountable for the messages found on the website? In short, no, I don't think so. Why can't people just exercise self-restraint and simply not look at the website if they find the comments offensive? Censoring, or forcing the site to change its ways is frivolous, as there will no doubt be a (or multiple) replacement site which pops in to fill the void. Furthermore, if JuicyCampus doesn't log the IP's of the posters (as it claims), then there truly cannot be any legal recourse for those who claim they've been slandered and want to find out who's responsible. The bottom line: JuicyCampus, or any equivalent, is here to stay.