Before I Sleep:
…SP!
"For many years, many Chinese business models have relied on the above “sucker” method. Foreign companies attracted by China’s dirt-cheap labor costs and lax regulations line up to take advantage of outsourcing their manufacturing work to maximize profits. Within a short time, the same companies notice profits are falling because the market is flooded with cheap imitations of their product. Even if you cease to do business with that manufacturer, the damage is irreversible - nothing will stop the copies and the Chinese goverment (although having attended conventions, signed treaties, and legislated laws to declare copyright and protect intellectual property) won’t let you sue the Chinese-owned company for damages. Frankly, my dear, they don’t give a damn. Neither do the Chinese citizens (and many others around the world) who enjoy the same dirt-cheap prices on goods such as electronics, movies, and uppity brand-name handbags. This is exactly why Microsoft won’t see a red cent from the Chinese for their software: why pay a premium for the legitimate version when the copy does the exact same thing for cheaper?"
"When a powerful group forces information to be removed from the internet, that is censorship. Some acts of censorship are more acceptable than others depending on what information is being censored and why."
"
Taking such positions is nothing new for Mozilla and history has proved us right for doing so, in particular regarding ActiveX and Web standards in general.
Perhaps it’s not widely known, but Gecko has had code to support hosting ActiveX controls, dating back as far as 1999. ActiveX controls are very much like system video codecs. ActiveX support would have been very useful to users ever since 1999, and still would be now — certainly in corporate intranets, and everywhere in China and South Korea. Enabling ActiveX support would probably boost our market share significantly. Most users have useful ActiveX controls on their machines. But for the last ten years, even during Mozilla’s most desperate days, we have consistently refused to turn this feature on, because we believe that ActiveX is not good for the Web.
I’m not suggesting that the consequences of exposing system codecs to the Web would be identical to exposing ActiveX. That’s unlikely, and unknowable. But favouring our principles over short-term gains for users is nothing new for Mozilla, and when we’ve done it in the past, history shows it was the right thing to do.
"
This photo does not need any explanation.
