February 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [Re: Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will be an abstract argument. When the process of harvesting on "free markets" is put in judgement, so will the harvest reached in an economy were an "invisible hand" rules. Perhaps both should be rightfully analyzed but which one first? David Stultz <ds932(a)bard.edu> wrote: > > Just playing the Devil's Advocate here. > > Are you allowed to go into a theatre and yell, "FIRE!!!" when there is > none? Nope. > > There *are* restrictions on speech. If MS's "speech" violated somebody's > rights, that speech can be made illegal. > > Dave > > PS I agree that code is speech. > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, lizard wrote: > > > "Colin A. Reed" wrote: > > > > > > > > I'll admit that the trial was fucked up from the start by the decision to > > > center it around netscape rather than something more blatant like stac. > > > Anyways, this has nothing to do with FC, unless you think that enterprise > > > is fundamentally expressive and Microsoft's vicious suppression of > > > competition has limited the ability of others to be heard. > > > > > But if source code is free speech, isn't a judge ordering some code be > > removed/edited/changed an intrustion on free speech? Isn't saying > > "Remove Explorer from the core install!" the same as saying "Remove this > > chapter from this book!" > > > > Sure, the chapter can then be republished separately, but who is the > > judge to decide what elements of a work of speech belong together? > > > > Code IS speech. And this has implications beyond DECSS and PGP. > > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

2 1

None
by David Theroux 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Subject: THE LIGHTHOUSE: February 27, 2001 THE LIGHTHOUSE "Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..." VOL. 3, ISSUE 8 February 27, 2001 MICROSOFT TRIAL JUDGE BASED HIS BREAK-UP "REMEDY" ON FLAWED THEORY, NOT FACTS As the Microsoft antitrust case moved into federal appeals court Monday, the Independent Institute released an updated edition of the book that The Economist magazine calls "by a long way...the best single thing to read" on high-tech markets and network economics, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, by Stan J. Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis. The new edition includes a stinging critique of the findings and break-up "remedy" proposed by Microsoft trial judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. "The government has chosen and the judge has approved a defective remedy," write economists Liebowitz and Margolis, research fellows at The Independent Institute. "Its key defect is its logical inconsistency with the claims made in the case. It's difficult to avoid concluding that the purpose of the so-called remedy is not correction, but punishment." First published in 1999, and based on peer-reviewed research going back more than a decade, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT argues that high-tech markets face vigorous competition and that the "path dependence" theory which claims such markets are prone to "locking in" inferior products lacks empirical support and merits no place in antitrust cases. Even with the presence of so-called network effects -- the phenomenon of a product becoming more useful to a consumer, the greater the number of other users of the product -- markets do not "lock in" a market leader and do not preclude the possibility that a better product will come along and dethrone it. As Liebowitz and Margolis show, contrary to popular myth, the market success of the standard QWERTY keyboard arrangement, the VHS videotape format, and various Microsoft software programs is due not to "lock-in" but to the fact that these products are better than the competition. In the case of Microsoft, Liebowitz and Margolis found that when its software products have dominated a market, that success can be explained by the superior reviews those products received in independent magazines. Further, Microsoft has not acted as a monopolist but has pursued a low-price, high-volume strategy that has led to prices falling more dramatically in markets where Microsoft competes than in markets where it does not compete. "When the theory of an antitrust case is based on a defective view of markets," conclude Liebowitz and Margolis, "it is not surprising that the findings are flawed or that the proposed remedy will do more harm than good. The Microsoft case is based largely on a theory of lock-in through network effects, an insecure foundation at best. Network theories, we have argued, ought not be enshrined in our antitrust laws. They can be so enshrined only if conjecture is elevated above evidence." For more information, see the new press release of WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, by Stan Liebowtiz and Stephen Margolis (The Independent Institute, 2001), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-8-1.html. For an updated, detailed summary of WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-8-2.html. To order WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-8-3.html. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

None
by David Theroux 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Subject: THE LIGHTHOUSE: February 27, 2001 THE LIGHTHOUSE "Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..." VOL. 3, ISSUE 8 February 27, 2001 MICROSOFT TRIAL JUDGE BASED HIS BREAK-UP "REMEDY" ON FLAWED THEORY, NOT FACTS As the Microsoft antitrust case moved into federal appeals court Monday, the Independent Institute released an updated edition of the book that The Economist magazine calls "by a long way...the best single thing to read" on high-tech markets and network economics, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, by Stan J. Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis. The new edition includes a stinging critique of the findings and break-up "remedy" proposed by Microsoft trial judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. "The government has chosen and the judge has approved a defective remedy," write economists Liebowitz and Margolis, research fellows at The Independent Institute. "Its key defect is its logical inconsistency with the claims made in the case. It's difficult to avoid concluding that the purpose of the so-called remedy is not correction, but punishment." First published in 1999, and based on peer-reviewed research going back more than a decade, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT argues that high-tech markets face vigorous competition and that the "path dependence" theory which claims such markets are prone to "locking in" inferior products lacks empirical support and merits no place in antitrust cases. Even with the presence of so-called network effects -- the phenomenon of a product becoming more useful to a consumer, the greater the number of other users of the product -- markets do not "lock in" a market leader and do not preclude the possibility that a better product will come along and dethrone it. As Liebowitz and Margolis show, contrary to popular myth, the market success of the standard QWERTY keyboard arrangement, the VHS videotape format, and various Microsoft software programs is due not to "lock-in" but to the fact that these products are better than the competition. In the case of Microsoft, Liebowitz and Margolis found that when its software products have dominated a market, that success can be explained by the superior reviews those products received in independent magazines. Further, Microsoft has not acted as a monopolist but has pursued a low-price, high-volume strategy that has led to prices falling more dramatically in markets where Microsoft competes than in markets where it does not compete. "When the theory of an antitrust case is based on a defective view of markets," conclude Liebowitz and Margolis, "it is not surprising that the findings are flawed or that the proposed remedy will do more harm than good. The Microsoft case is based largely on a theory of lock-in through network effects, an insecure foundation at best. Network theories, we have argued, ought not be enshrined in our antitrust laws. They can be so enshrined only if conjecture is elevated above evidence." For more information, see the new press release of WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, by Stan Liebowtiz and Stephen Margolis (The Independent Institute, 2001), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-8-1.html. For an updated, detailed summary of WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-8-2.html. To order WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-8-3.html. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

None
by miles leech 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

1 0

BlackJack Anyone???
by belsky＠frogdip.net 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

1 0

Miscropayments and artists (actually comics)
by Jason Murray 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

http://www.thecomicreader.com/html/icst/icst-5/icst-5.html I must say, it is much more entertaining to read thing in this format. Did I beat Choate to it?

1 0

New registration to SCMP.com
by info＠scmp.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Dear Joe Cypherpunk, Thank you for taking time to register with SCMP.com. Your username: joecypherpunk Your password: cypherpunks SCMP.com

1 0

REAL MONEY STILL RULES
by Julian Swig 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Every State(2) has a Money of Account Provision (I'll bet) I just figured CaGovC 6850. Real money is provided for so the "judges" and the public employees can decline to accept transfer of debt (They do not have to allow their "checks" to "clear"). They can require gold or silver from the Controller and/or the Treasurer! This must be so even though 3 USC 1- 21 makes the States(2) (and all county voting precincts ) = the District of Columbia. The administrative governments for the 50 provinces (States(2)) must accommodate the 50 union States(1) respectively. When we invoke (if we know how) their State(2) courts onto the law side, the judge and jury are deemed capable of being paid real money. (If we don't invoke the court in forma pauperis but transfer debt for fees we will get the fiction-equity-UCC State(2) court regardless of what we plead.) Got spare change? Run an ad in your local Shopper. JURORS Get your ($)25 per day in Gold [Your phone # and/or e-mail or web page] Provide a networking source, forms and information to enable jurors to demand and obtain their real money. ( ) for $ is because in CA jury service is now 5 dollars a day (There is talk of raising it). So 5 dollars are "purchased" for about 25 in ($), i.e., in FRNs. I figured for silver because I have a general idea of the exchange value, but "gold" is a better trigger for an ad. (I get the foundation for principles settled then I can adjust the particulars -That's how I work!-JS) Jurors are summoned by ALL CAPS "commercial names" so they must be voir dired for the capacity they will accept for sitting as jurors. They can still accept transfer of debt but they must affirm they will judge the evidence in their flesh and blood capacity (They must be educated on the fly that they have a fiction identity and a real identify. -Such education is never permitted on the fiction-equity-UCC side of the court.) So how are Money of Account provisions rationalized when the treasurers, court clerks, county collections receive "cash"!!!!? For checks I imagine they are accounted for as dollars but once the county accepts the privilege of letting the debts be discharged over at the bank how are the bank balances reported back in the county controller's office!!!!!? Oh! Maybe they just report the amounts they sent over and are oblivious to what has happens. They just write checks and warrants to pay out but folks keep accepting discharge by transfer of debt but the county never catches on! Peoples Law Association/Julian: Swig at julswig(a)juno.com

2 1

THANK YOU cypherpunks -YDOX
by Art.Hagar＠einstein.ssz.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

cypherpunks, You owe it to yourself to find out why the richest home-based entrepreneurs are buzzing about this vacation package. $17,000 in hotel, airfare, car rental, shopping discounts, over 30 VACATIONS for $89.90 down and we approve 98% for financing making this easy to sell. Fly to HAWAII FOR FREE! CANCUN and ARUBA! FABULOUS CRUISES for two in the CARIBBEAN with stops on GRAND BAHAMAS ISLAND. So much more!!! PLUS YOU MAKE $1,000 COMMISSIONS every time you sell this same package to anyone else! cypherpunks, if you do not use all of the Vacations become a HERO and give them away to family and friends. You don't have to send me an email asking me to remove you because this is the only chance you will get at this FANTASTIC OFFER. If you would like more information just send me an email with $1000 in the subject. Thank you again, Art Hagar art2222(a)email.com

1 0

Re: RE: Centre for Hypersonics - HyShot Scramjet Test Programme
by Steve Schear 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

At 09:45 AM 2/23/01 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: >I'll speculate that Jim posted this as a demo that 'amateur' rocketry >can reach orbit. If you read the article, you'll find it does nothing of >the kind. This is suborbital - in fact, the rocket goes almost 350km >straight up and down (they're testing scramjet configurations during >re-entry). A significant portion of a solid rocket motor's weight is the casing and nozzle. The casing allows the gases from the burning propellent to generate enough pressure that when they exit the nozzle their moving a very high velocity. One of the brightest recent ideas in rocketry comes from Technanogy (http://www.technanogy.net) if you reduce the size of the propellent grains the velocity of the gasses at the burning surface can go from sub-sonic to supersonic without the need for a nozzle (perhaps even a casing). Goodbye nozzle and casing, hello single-stage to orbit. Thrust vectoring, if desired, would be accomplished by other well-known means. Technanogy has built a pilot plant to manufacture 40 nm aluminum powder. The technology's efficacy was verified by a series of test at Aerospace Corp. and they have secured a grant to retrofit a large number Sidewinders. They claim that the change should dramatically increase range with minimal weapon system changes. If successful they hope to apply their approach to orbital vehicles. steve

1 0