BOSTON - A federal judge has fined Boston Scientific Corp. more than $7 million for violating Federal Trade Commission instructions to preserve competition in the market for coronary catheters, a penalty the government called the largest ever related to an FTC order.

U.S. District Court Judge Patti B. Saris ruled Friday that Boston Scientific "harmed" people with heart disease when it failed to fulfill its obligation to license technology to competitor Hewlett-Packard.

The suit concerned tiny devices that, when inserted into coronary arteries, reflect images that allow doctors to observe damage.

The FTC had told Boston Scientific it would only allow its purchase of CVIS, another maker of the devices, if Boston Scientific agreed to share technology with Hewlett-Packard. Saris ruled that Boston Scientific dragged its feet in providing the technology and was "a substantial contributing cause" to HP's 1998 decision to leave the field.

When HP stopped making its new catheter, the Scout, "patients with heart disease were left with technology inferior to that available in 1995," Saris wrote.

The suit had sought $35 million, Boston Scientific said. The Justice Department said the previous record civil fine for violating an FTC order was $4 million.

"We respectfully disagree with the judge," Boston Scientific spokesman Paul Donovan said Monday. "We have the right to appeal and we're currently evaluating that option."

Donovan added: "We don't believe there is any credible evidence that we harmed public health."

But the diversity concept is really quite different. Its premise is that where there are, for example, only white people in a discussion, then the viewpoints, as seen through the eyes of persons of a different racial or ethnic background--meaning those aspects of difference or sameness from a person who has experienced life as a black person or as a Latino or as a disabled person, no matter how varied from black person to black person or Latino to Latino, will in fact be missing. This is true without regard to the diversity on other, non-racial or ethnic grounds, of the group. University officials seeking to create a rigorous intellectual environment as well as prepare students for leadership in a multi-racial world, determined that the one-race dimension that so many students get in their segregated elementary and secondary classrooms did not serve this purpose. Admissions programs to promote diversity recognize the salience of race and ethnicity without making any assumptions about the cohesiveness or sameness of viewpoint among members of any group. In fact, the more varied the viewpoint of those persons typically absent from the conversation, the better, which is why a critical mass of minority students is needed--to prevent the stereotyping that would be likely to occur if there were only a token number of minorities at the school.

Before the Supreme Court rules that the Founders had the right to practice sodomy in mind when they wrote the Constitution, we should ask where the chipping away at law and morality is leading us.

Once sodomy is made legal, what's next? How about polygamy? As we have been reminded in the case of Utah's Elizabeth Smart and her abduction by a practicing polygamist, there are people who believe they have a right to that sexual and relational preference. If sodomy is legalized, can polygamists then ask the Supreme Court to end the prohibition against their "right" to engage in sex with and "marry" multiple partners? If not, on what legal grounds will they be refused? To listen to the attorneys for the Texas men seeking redress of their sexual grievances, a decision to strike down the Texas anti-sodomy law should be based on "changing times" and public opinion polls.

In the past, the law has been viewed as something that flowed from a Law-giver, outside of the reach of humankind to create or manipulate. But since humanity now sees itself as the law-maker (the breaking of that ancient Law is now celebrated in personal behavior and encouraged in film, in magazines and on TV), who is to say whose morality, if any morality, should prevail? Having made "choice"

It is bad enough when someone takes the position that he has made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts. It is worse when someone else makes up his mind for him and then he dismisses any facts to the contrary by attributing bad motives to those who present those facts.

Creating mindless followers is one of the most dangerous things that our public schools are doing. Young people who know only how to vent their emotions, and not how to weigh opposing arguments through logic and evidence, are sitting ducks for the next talented demagogue who comes along in some cult or movement, including movements like those that put the Nazis in power in Germany.

At one time, the educator's creed was: "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." Today, schools across the country are teaching students what to think -- whether about the environment, the war, social policy, or whatever.

"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia University told the audience at Low Library Wednesday night. "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."

The crowd was largely silent at the remark. They loudly applauded De Genova later when he said, "If we really believe that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."

The goal of the event, presumably, was to spark intellectual, scholarly discussion about the war in Iraq. But last night's event was not a serious debate. It was a forum where professors could express their views unopposed.

Even if the event was designed for the very legitimate purpose of advocating only an anti-war perspective -- and not, as Professor Ira Katznelson suggested at the beginning of the evening, "to teach" -- one of the surprising things about the teach-in was the assumption on the part of several speakers that no one in favor of the war (or even anyone ambivalent) was present. Professor Jack Snyder said he felt comfortable speaking at Low last night because he knew there would be little opposition. The speakers were not out to change anyone's mind about the war; instead, they reveled in an atmosphere of intellectual conformity. . . .

While some professors did present articulate and sophisticated reasons for disagreeing with the war, the possibility of disagreement was never taken seriously; no "teaching" took place. Too many students left the teach-in feeling intimidated not by the overwhelming opposition to the war, but to the way an academic forum became a fervid presentation of an exclusive viewpoint. In the future, the University should be wary of advertising a "critical" forum that is so uncritical of its own perspective.

NEW YORK - Checkpoint Systems Inc. said on Friday a federal judge has annulled an antitrust verdict against the labeling system maker but upheld another ruling, lowering damages to be paid by the company to $13 million from $80 million.

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania annulled an verdict handed down by a jury last May for Checkpoint's allegedly antitrust activities in the market for electronic article surveillance tags.

The judge upheld a verdict on charges of violating state laws on tortuous interference and unfair competition, but reduced the award for these infractions to $13 million from $19 million.

Checkpoint, based in Thorofare, New Jersey, makes source tagging, bar code labeling systems and retail merchandising systems.

Shares of Checkpoint rose 47 cents, or 5 percent, to close at $9.85 on the New York Stock Exchange.

I have great respect for the men and women fighting overseas to protect our way of life in Iraq and other parts of the world. As the son of an Army officer, I understand the strength, courage and discipline required to successfully carry out their missions in hostile environments and feel tremendous pride they are representing us.

Obviously, no one likes war. Our Congress and President tried hard to avoid the use of force, but ultimately decided it was the best course of action. I like the assertiveness shown by President Bush and think we owe it to our political and military leaders, along with our brave soldiers to be as supportive as possible during these difficult and trying times. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let our forces know that I am thinking about you and wishing you and your families the best.

Our government should announce -- soon -- that the new postwar Iraqi administration will "personalize" the nation's oil revenues by establishing an Iraqi national investment trust -- The Iraqi People's Freedom Trust -- that will receive a major share -- say, 50% -- of all future Iraqi oil earnings.

The rest can go to central government and federal regional governments on some per capita basis.

I think Dolinar's proposal is a terrible idea. Iraq's oil is not the property of all Iraqis---it's the property of those who harvest it. Apply Dolinar's proposal to an industry like farming, with 50% of the profits going to the Iraqi people and the other 50% going to the government, and I think it's easy to see just how defective such a proposal would be.

I say Iraq’s nationalized industries, including its oil production facilities, should be privatized by auction to the highest bidder, and all auction proceeds should go to the Iraqi treasury. No distinction should be made between Iraqi and international bidders, and under Iraqi law, foreign ownership rights should be enforced with the same strength as domestic ownership rights.

Iraq has lived under bloody socialism for too many years. The antidote is not more socialism, but freedom and individual rights, including property rights. Instead of "power to the people," Iraq needs "power to the producer."

With a wave of Uday's arm the manacled boxer was led into the room by Iraqi secret service. Sitting behind a dark wood desk beneath an oversized portrait of himself, Uday began his tirade. "In sport you can win or you can lose. I told you not to come home if you didn't win." His voice rising, he walked around the desk and gave the boxer a lesson. "This is how you box," he screamed as he threw a left and a right straight to the fighter's face. Blood dribbled from the athlete's nose as Uday launched another round of punches. Then, using the electric prod he was famous for carrying, Uday jolted the boxer in the chest.

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:10 PM

:: help support this website | link |

It's their philosophy, stupid 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 2:16 PM

:: help support this website | link |

An Axis of Valor 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 2:06 PM

:: help support this website | link |

The Rule of Reason 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:00 AM

:: help support this website | link |