[Gllug] SpaceShipOne launch

[Ashley Evans]

Richard Jones wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:31:31PM +0100, Ashley Evans wrote:
>  
>
>>This is just another reason to back up my view that companies should be 
>>regulated in such a way that they are only allowed to enter one area of 
>>business. Microsoft should stick to computer software. Supermarkets 
>>should stick to SELLING food, not chemically-condidtioned cheap crap or 
>>credit cards. At the very least there should be laws against compaines 
>>provideing services or products in areas where the is potential for 
>>conflict of interest. A case high-lighted by coke(schweppes - goggle 
>>reveals this is now Cadbury Schweppes (it just gets worse)) forceing a 
>>video shop owner to stop selling Buxton water and replace it with their 
>>rather controversial, failed "pure" water Dasani[0]. Needless to say, 
>>the video shop is located in Buxton itself.
>>    
>>
>
>This isn't going to fly.
>
>Remember first of all that most companies are small companies.  In
>fact most companies are shops and one/two-man enterprises.  If I'm
>running a failing computer software company 'registered' as a computer
>software company, am I no longer allowed to go into any other line of
>business?  Or perhaps I have to 'reregister' as a maker of art and
>crafts, and immediately cease selling software?  Who decides the
>categories?  Our wonderfully in-touch PM with all his technical
>know-how?
>  
>

I'm not making any suggestion as to *how* this could or should work. 
But, I do believe it would.

The problem you pose is perfectly valid but then any system is likely to 
have its flaws. The question is how can we minimise the stupidity and 
nastyness that comes from big companies bending the rules. One solution 
is to have a tiered system that states, in simple terms, If your net 
profit (or some other marker of size/influence) is greater than level x, 
you a deemed to have a level of responsibility and influene that 
requires you to follow stricter rules than the little man on the 
high-street, or the market trader.

>The Windows Media Player (WMP) case is...
>
Agreed

>
>Ordinarily when a person is found guilty...
>  
>
Agreed

>Companies are going to continue to get away with it...
>  
>
Agreed

>A few years ago you might remember that most of the cinemas in London
>were bought by Virgin, then seemingly only about a year later, they
>were sold on (to UGC?).  Did Virgin suddenly get cold feet about being
>in the cinema business?  Actually no.  When Virgin bought the cinemas
>it signed them up to a UKP 17m contract to sell Virgin Cola, which
>tied them in for several years afterwards.  [Don't know if they still
>sell Virgin Cola now they're all owned by Odeon, anyone know?  I
>stopped going to the cinema several years ago].  Was this illegal?
>Should this have been illegal?  No, and probably not.  
>

No, and probably yes (imho). Why should I have to buy Virgin cola?

Because the *site* manager decides that he likes a selection of brands 
that includs Vigin cola? Fine.

Because some contract states that all of the affected cinemas must sell 
brand X. Not cricket, sir!

>It would be an
>entirely different matter if these cinemas tied the sale of tickets to
>the sale of cola, and didn't allow you to bring your own refreshments.
>  
>
I don't know of any cinemas that do allow you to take in your own 
refreshments. Admittedly I rarely go to see a movie.

Ashley

>Rich.
>
>  
>

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug