Qo

This sounds reasonable - but doesn't refute my main point - that nullification, while not a criminal act, can often not be applied without first committing a separate criminal act, and that one should be aware of this fact and take appropriate precautions.

Interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the fact that the law doesn't support a certain verdict obviate the need for nullification?

Probably. If they charge you, are you comfortable with that as your defense?

I'm a little disappointed that the article doesn't mention a serious practical impediment to nullification - the "voir dire" process of juror selection. They ask you a series of questions, one of them usually being "Will you apply the law as I explain it to you?" You are 100% within your rights to answer no - they'll excuse you from the jury. If you say "yes", however, but you mean "no", then you have committed perjury. You won't get caught if you're crafty about it, but it's still a relevant detail. A more accurate title might have been: "People can do whatever they want as long as they're OK going to jail if they get caught"

This makes sense to me. Revenues scale with deposits, but many expenses scale with number of customers. Below a certain balance, the bank actually loses money on each additional checking account - better for them if you just go somewhere else. Also, the less money you have in your account, the less certain they can be of the maturity of the loan you've made them. Given they can basically borrow from the fed for free, why would they want your money?

I wondered the same thing about the third place contestant. The write-up said she measured the carcinogens in grilled chicken using a high pressure liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer. When I was in college, they would only let us use the analytic equipment in planned labs under supervised conditions. I can only imagine the response if I went to the lab manager and asked if I could put a piece of chicken in his spectrometer.

Of course my argument holds up. It's true by definition. But remember, my first post said that I thought there was a stronger case for a GSM monopoly.

Look, the term "monopoly" is a pretty strong word, and it carries with it certain connotations that I don't think apply here. So if you want to use it in the strictest sense of "a market with only one seller" then I agree with you, but saying that "AT&T has a monopoly on GSM mobile coverage" has about as much weight as saying "Apple has a monopoly on iPods." Yeah, true, so what?

First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong.

But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because the product that this company sells is going to be somewhat different than those of its competitors. Yeah, true, so what?

(a)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_...

Even if this deal goes through, you'll have three national carriers to choose from and, depending on where you live, one or more regional carriers, plus VoIP. That's not pretty darn close to a monopoly at all.

I think there's a stronger case for a GSM monopoly, but at some point the argument becomes silly - where do you draw the line between an uncompetitive market and a market with product differentiation? Would you have broken up Standard Oil because they were the only ones offering Super Unleaded?