Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts
Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be okay? Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical merits when there is a large existing supplier. It's much worse when the client knows that that supplier has a long history of targetting 'upstart' companies and destroying them. Support and upgradeability are important features that require a company to continue operating. 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. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:31:00 -0600 To: freematt@coil.com From: David Theroux <DJTheroux@independent.org>
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@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/ **************************************************************************
"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.
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.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz 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.
Speech can't violate rights, only acts against another can. Speech is not an act against another. Unconstitutional restrictions on speech that is. If there is a fire and I don't yell have I commited a crime? If I yell fire and everyone does nothing was a crime commited? Let's take your example, it only applies if people are in the theatre AND they react as if there were a fire. But is it the safety of the theatre inhabitants we're concerned about? Clearly not since there are more than sufficient legal and civil recoveries for both the theatre owner and the patrons if their rights are infringed. The reality is that causing a riot, via speech or some other mechanism, isn't protected by the 1st. The argument to forward is a straw-man, they want to regulate speech when it is convenient to their ends and they hope nobody notices they're pulling a fast one to do it. So what they have is a nice tasting argument so that you'll accept A PRIORI restraint on speech. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel? I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech. But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense. --dave On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz 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.
Speech can't violate rights, only acts against another can. Speech is not an act against another.
Unconstitutional restrictions on speech that is. If there is a fire and I don't yell have I commited a crime? If I yell fire and everyone does nothing was a crime commited?
Let's take your example, it only applies if people are in the theatre AND they react as if there were a fire. But is it the safety of the theatre inhabitants we're concerned about? Clearly not since there are more than sufficient legal and civil recoveries for both the theatre owner and the patrons if their rights are infringed.
The reality is that causing a riot, via speech or some other mechanism, isn't protected by the 1st. The argument to forward is a straw-man, they want to regulate speech when it is convenient to their ends and they hope nobody notices they're pulling a fast one to do it. So what they have is a nice tasting argument so that you'll accept A PRIORI restraint on speech.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz wrote:
I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel?
But that's not the speech but the consequence of the speech. No, you should be held to an a priori 'no lie' standard. But if by that lie you are damaging, and intent should aggravage the crime, another person by the change in behaviour of anonymous 3rd parties then how is holding the speaker accountable for those consequences a limit on their speech? How does that justify saying 'you can't lie'? Aren't there times when lying is the only way not to hurt persons (rare as it is, if it exists we must allow that if we hold that hurting people is wrong).
I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech.
You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation. It's not the speech that should be punished, it should be my acting with intent to harm. That speech might be involved is really irrelevant.
But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense.
As long as it exists the work is not done. It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all). ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).
Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? ;)
You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation.
Heh. Maybe ridicule wasn't the right word. I can take a joke, ridicule is ok. I guess a better word would have been "unjustified slander" (OK, that's two). Satire and ridicule are good things, and are protected...this is good. But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me. - Dave "big old asshole" Stultz On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz wrote:
I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel?
But that's not the speech but the consequence of the speech. No, you should be held to an a priori 'no lie' standard. But if by that lie you are damaging, and intent should aggravage the crime, another person by the change in behaviour of anonymous 3rd parties then how is holding the speaker accountable for those consequences a limit on their speech? How does that justify saying 'you can't lie'? Aren't there times when lying is the only way not to hurt persons (rare as it is, if it exists we must allow that if we hold that hurting people is wrong).
I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech.
You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation. It's not the speech that should be punished, it should be my acting with intent to harm. That speech might be involved is really irrelevant.
But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense.
As long as it exists the work is not done.
It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:23 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:
It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).
Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? ;)
Let's not adopt this banal convention on this list. Much bandwidth is wasted by people arguing about invocation of Godwin's Law and inventing their own variants (such as May's Lemma, that more bandwidth is wasted....).
You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation.
Heh. Maybe ridicule wasn't the right word. I can take a joke, ridicule is ok. I guess a better word would have been "unjustified slander" (OK, that's two). Satire and ridicule are good things, and are protected...this is good.
But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.
If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Let's not adopt this banal convention on this list. Much bandwidth is wasted by people arguing about invocation of Godwin's Law and inventing their own variants (such as May's Lemma, that more bandwidth is wasted....).
Whatever. Lets not be too serious.
If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually.
Never said I was an expert. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
At 11:23 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:
It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).
Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? ;)
Let's not adopt this banal convention on this list. Much bandwidth is wasted by people arguing about invocation of Godwin's Law and inventing their own variants (such as May's Lemma, that more bandwidth is wasted....).
You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation.
Heh. Maybe ridicule wasn't the right word. I can take a joke, ridicule is ok. I guess a better word would have been "unjustified slander" (OK, that's two). Satire and ridicule are good things, and are protected...this is good.
But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.
If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually.
--Tim May
-- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually.
It really isn't a point to be pursuaded, it's axiomatic in democratic thought. The premise is that the only way to guarantee every person a say in their society is to guarantee their say. Not a hard concept at all. Unfortunately it's more than a tad non-PC, especially to anarchist and federalist (statist by your term I believe). Merely another observation that those who take oaths to protect our liberty don't usually themselves believe in it. Ask yourself (not Tim but the reader in general) why is it that in a country dedicated to free speech the defendent in a trial doesn't get it while in the courtroom? ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Data points: I got two literate and charming off-list messages in connection with that moron who wanted advice on committing federal crimes in connection with cellular phone conversations not involving him. They were: ----- Original Message ----- From: mike patton <mpatton@kiva.net> To: <djb@gci.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:38 PM Subject: Trolling for Conspirators fuck u =================== And: ----- Original Message ----- From: mike patton <mpatton@kiva.net> To: <djb@gci.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:39 PM Subject: Trolling for Conspirators whats wrong
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:47:09PM -0800, Tim May wrote, quoting someone:
But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.
If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually.
Right. Put another way, the reason we care about free speech and want to protect it is precisely *because* it has powerful results. -Declan
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz wrote:
But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.
Ding Ding :) ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote:
Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread?
It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 61pwOMBLpml48FZUTWwMfoIW0QLabj+EyTeP1ANH 4uUgcgY8zfUFGh64CZnHVOygyvbOYBzvlFTQH48nZ
It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.
Somehow I feel that my position (although now I see that I was wrong), was a Nazi-related view. That and I was only partially serious. Dave On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, James A. Donald wrote:
-- At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote:
Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread?
It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 61pwOMBLpml48FZUTWwMfoIW0QLabj+EyTeP1ANH 4uUgcgY8zfUFGh64CZnHVOygyvbOYBzvlFTQH48nZ
--
It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.
At 12:02 PM 2/28/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote:
Somehow I feel that my position (although now I see that I was wrong), was a Nazi-related view.
It was not my intention to imply that, and I do not think your post was Nazi related. However, as someone who routinely gets in flame fests with real Nazis, both the plug ugly kind who claim the lesser races are secretly making war with us, and the kind that piously tell us "I am not a nazi and my best friends are jews but ...", I am no fan of Godwin's law. You do not have to be a nazi to invoke it, but it frequently seems that way. Similarly the commies routinely invoke McCarthy. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG yBjC2vqQBWoHDEGz7+tnuaoHTgAKDjOwhiJRNMZV 4FAfnx+Vg+XLoAcBmfWMpTlpePSiAKMIlBcQD8zz2
At 11:12 PM 2/27/01 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote:
Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread?
It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Claims that it is a debate-ender are add-ons. Reese
Reese wrote:
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification. Ken
Ken Brown wrote:
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.
don't think so. it's a good observation, and most likely better than yours unless we talk about infinities. there are libraries full of books where neither nazis or hitler are even mentioned. yet usenet debates DO converge on those topics with surprising pace. most likely a psychological thing - the search for a recent, extreme and well-known example or counter-example to your point. in the middle ages, one would've used witchcraft and satan instead.
-- Ken Brown wrote:
Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.
At 03:39 PM 3/1/2001 +0100, Tom wrote:
don't think so. it's a good observation, and most likely better than yours unless we talk about infinities. there are libraries full of books where neither nazis or hitler are even mentioned. yet usenet debates DO converge on those topics with surprising pace. most likely a psychological thing - the search for a recent, extreme and well-known example or counter-example to your point. in the middle ages, one would've used witchcraft and satan instead.
You are full of shit. I went to groups.google.com and did a search for usenet posts using the word "nazi" http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nazi Every single hit among the first page of hits was an appropriate and relevant use of the word nazi, Typical fragment from one of the posts : : whites are EXPECTED to support and feel simpathetic for : : what happened 400 years ago. When in reality its the best : : thing thats ever happened to the half breed monkeys that : : plauge our society. If usenet threads tend to feature the word nazi, it is because there are plenty of nazis on usenet, whereas in published books the publishers screen them out. Same thing for the frequent invocation of McCarthy by commies. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG P9dodNiWfcTAmppyXXpPobdfbRcTFtEL0l+dd4Ea 42skNF5abq7BSLPQ5iLIHH1kIHLC1ejBfcMbsUryT
Tim, I know Mike Godwin. I've e-mailed Mike Godwin. And, Tim, you're no Mike Godwin. ;-) Aimee Somebody said:
I went to groups.google.com and did a search for usenet posts using the word "nazi" http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nazi
Every single hit among the first page of hits was an appropriate and relevant use of the word nazi,
This was incorrect: Eight of the first ten posts were appropriate uses of the word "nazi". Two were inappropriate. <snip>
FWD: -------- Even if 99 percent of all references to Nazis on the Internet were appropriate and in-context, that would not prove anything, one way or the other, as far as Godwin's Law is concerned -- anyone who says Feel free to quote me on this. Moreover, the statistical truth of Godwin's Law is beside the point, which is to alert readers and writers to invidious comparisons, and to the need to remember the gravity of what the Nazis did. <snippage> --Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- "I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...." --Walt Whitman Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 202-637-9800 His book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic . --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:51 PM -0600 3/1/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Tim, I know Mike Godwin. I've e-mailed Mike Godwin. And, Tim, you're no Mike Godwin.
PLONK --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 7:51 PM -0600 3/1/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Tim, I know Mike Godwin. I've e-mailed Mike Godwin. And, Tim, you're no Mike Godwin.
PLONK
--Tim May
His words. I admit it, I prevailed on him to rescue me from your affections. My plan seems to have backfired, as he knew it would. I'm a chew toy. -Aimee
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:14:46PM -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
I admit it, I prevailed on him to rescue me from your affections. My plan seems to have backfired, as he knew it would. I'm a chew toy.
This is a very, very strange statement. -Declan
Declan wrote:
This is a very, very strange statement.
It takes just a moment to remember that Aimee is allegedly based in Waco, TX, though probably with a TLA in Fort Worth -- Texas TLAs never stop joking about Waco to hide their own addiction problems. Choate is in Austin, TX, when he's not electromagnetically rocketing around the stars. Mike Godwin's Texas background is a disturbing, if pleasurable, fact. The EFF dustup was rooted in hypersensitive sensibilities about a party's birthplace. It's the water, Declan, the water in Texas has stuff in it that drives natives to say, to write, to behave in odd ways. The smiles of Texans are not signs of friendliness but evidence of contaminated ground water. Scientists can find no difference in the ground water and white lightning. I'm a Texan. Like Texas, the water in DC, the water is New York City, in California, the East and West Coast, some say the New World, is laced with something that induces crazed, condescending braggartly superiority, the urge to never lose an argument that's winnable by lying, by denying that's what you said, wrote, did. To shoot if nothing else wins. This is not about superpower foreign policy.
-- At 07:51 PM 3/1/2001 -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
Even if 99 percent of all references to Nazis on the Internet were appropriate and in-context, that would not prove anything, one way or the other, as far as Godwin's Law is concerned
It would, however prove that most invocations of Godwin's law were inappropriate. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG v+VmGLQURCkp+LAXeAa14tC5SAhoJxLW372xlizv 4qC+ubDjcg+vZ1FQDzX3xphtASsOK5YotjcNPSXIB
-- At 07:51 PM 3/1/2001 -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
the need to remember the gravity of what the Nazis did.
But those invoking Godwin's law seldom do so because the gravity of Nazi crimes is being depreciated by some comparison. Rather their objection is that because the nazi crimes were uniquely wicked, and X is not uniquely wicked, a comparison of nazis with X does not apply -- in other words that the evil of the nazis was unique, so we need learn no lessons from history. Of course the evil of the nazis was far from unique, it was merely one of the larger of many similar twentieth century crimes -- the armenians, the kulaks, and so on and so forth. The evil of the nazis is not unique. Over and over again the same causes led to the same consequences, and the only way we can stop it from happening again and again is to pay attention. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8rIOv31R23cArTvRP+H4laJZ238RGzPRQ2IRgEtB 4zcsqJRIcD4yw6m1CUsBQdve3IYrCPh0H5rin15wo
At 09:18 PM 3/3/01 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
The evil of the nazis is not unique. Over and over again the same causes led to the same consequences, and the only way we can stop it from happening again and again is to pay attention.
And stay armed. ....... Unbeknown to the latter, Marks had already cracked General de Gaulle's private cypher in a spare moment on the lavatory.
-- I wrote:
I went to groups.google.com and did a search for usenet posts using the word "nazi" http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nazi
Every single hit among the first page of hits was an appropriate and relevant use of the word nazi,
This was incorrect: Eight of the first ten posts were appropriate uses of the word "nazi". Two were inappropriate. Scanning subsequent pages, a substantial portion were bogus uses of the word nazi -- IBM sold Hollerith machines to the nazis, Bush's family did business with the nazis, etc. Strange how such transactions are evidence of nazism, while trading with Cuba is not evidence of communism. However although inappropriate uses of the word "nazi" are common, they are not so common that any use of the word "nazi" can be automatically discredited. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG sUhjMOWMWlXa+kEcKt9R/NoNYIgDusAX5QMcA/hz 4A09DAun6xZzYg93K6darpw/7icwaZmajkhJBZIH7
At 3:39 PM +0100 3/1/01, Tom wrote:
Ken Brown wrote:
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.
don't think so. it's a good observation, and most likely better than yours unless we talk about infinities. there are libraries full of books where neither nazis or hitler are even mentioned. yet usenet debates DO converge on those topics with surprising pace. most likely a psychological thing - the search for a recent, extreme and well-known example or counter-example to your point. in the middle ages, one would've used witchcraft and satan instead.
A very good point. Nazis and Hitler are one of the "benchmarks" for evil that most of us agree upon, regardless of our various political beliefs. (Not counting a small segment which supports Hitler and Nazism.) Thus, it's a "Schelling point" for people to compare things to, a common reference point that all participants are likely to have knowledge of. Hence the wide use of comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, hence Godwin's Law. Tom is right that in earlier centuries the comparisons would have been to Satan and witches and suchlike. Another such Schelling point is Big Brother, and the general language of George Orwell in "1984" (a novel which has given us _so many_ rich and illustrative additions to the English language, including, off the top of my head: Big Brother, thoughtcrime, war is peace, freedom is slavery, proles, we have always been at war with Oceania, Ministry of Truth, ignorance is strength, doublethink, doubleplusungood, Brin-style surveillance cameras in homes and flats, and several other rich images). Other common reference points are references to Christ, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and so on. And World War II in general. We refer to images out of history and religion as part of our common heritage of ideas and beliefs. (By the way, without _defending_ World War II in any way, it was _such_ a watershed period, such a seminal event, that one can only look back in awe at what happened. The development of technology (radar, manufacturing methods, jet aircraft, computers, the atom bomb, etc.), the realignment of the political map, the whole division between pre-war and post-war systems. It was the defining political, economic, military, and historical event of the past century, probably the past two centuries. All things stand in the shadow of the Second World War.) I believe there are many valid ways to refer to the Nazis and Hitler without some knee jerk invocation of Godwin's Law. (I haven't talked to Mike in several years, but I expect he would agree that Godwin's Law is often, even usually, invoked in a knee-jerk way.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
-- At 10:06 AM 3/1/2001 -0800, Tim May wrote:
I believe there are many valid ways to refer to the Nazis and Hitler without some knee jerk invocation of Godwin's Law. (I haven't talked to Mike in several years, but I expect he would agree that Godwin's Law is often, even usually, invoked in a knee-jerk way.)
The twentieth century taught us many enormously important lessons about human nature, social organization, and economics. Some people are very unhappy with those lessons, so they spin them, or find reasons to ignore them. "It was not socialism, it was state capitalism" Most invocations of Godwin's law are excuses for not remembering. When someone spins the lessons of nazism in a misleading way, other people usually do not invoke Godwin's law, instead they respond with the opposite spin. Most of the time when Godwin's law is invoked, it is an inappropriate response to an appropriate invocation of the lessons of the twentieth century. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG RCoqtjZH3uUscZtSOD+ypJ18lnwRKVrrCiCJ4BK 4oaDXQkf2S0RFEwGNPUi8f/2ccMiadE+oSllluHeY
At 11:02 AM 3/1/01 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
Reese wrote:
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.
Perhaps there are simply more National Socialists out there than recognize that fact. ........ A sociologist was interviewing a southern farmer: Why do you think the murder rate is higher in the south? I guess more southerners need killin'.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:47:08PM -1000, Reese wrote:
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions".
Mike has been gone from EFF for some years. -Declan
At 01:21 AM 3/3/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:47:08PM -1000, Reese wrote:
I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions".
Mike has been gone from EFF for some years.
The page I pulled that bit of text is still on the web. The Law remains valid. *shrug* Reese
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
But that's not the speech but the consequence of the speech. No, you should be held to an a priori 'no lie' standard. But if by that ^ not
lie you are damaging, and intent should aggravage the crime, another person by the change in behaviour of anonymous 3rd parties then how is holding the speaker accountable for those consequences a limit on their speech? How does that justify saying 'you can't lie'? Aren't there times when lying is the only way not to hurt persons (rare as it is, if it exists we must allow that if we hold that hurting people is wrong).
I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech.
You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation. It's not the speech that should be punished, it should be my acting with intent to harm. That speech might be involved is really irrelevant.
But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense.
As long as it exists the work is not done.
It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:41 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:
I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel? I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech.
But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense.
This is well-trod ground, even for this list. Citing libel and slander in the context of "free speech" is a slippery slope. For one thing, neither libel nor slander has anything to do with First Amendment issues, which are limitations on censorship, prior restraint, etc. (Even the infamous "Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" is more confusing than illuminating, and certainly has nothing to do with censorship or prior restraint.) Another thing is that this recent discussion about how Microsoft is "suppressing free speech" is just nonsensical. The list seems to have some new members lately, or is getting cross posts from other lists. It's important that folks know what the First Amendment says (apologies to non-U.S. folks) and how the term "free speech" is so often misused. As for your point about "I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements about my character," boy, have you dialed a wrong number! For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech. (And libertarians and other thoughtful persons recognize that incorrect characterizations are their own punishment. This is the concept of "negative reputations." Again, this is well-trod ground: the real debate about "right not to be defamed" turns out to translate to a debate about "unequal powers," as when a newspaper defames a peon. Defamation of you by me is never considered important enough to pass laws over.) Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 8:32 PM -0800 2/27/01, Tim May wrote:
Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining.
A typo. That should be "polycentric law," as in "multiple centers." --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'. It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes it a hard sell for obvious reasons. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
A typo. That should be "polycentric law," as in "multiple centers."
____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim said:
Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'.
It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes it a hard sell for obvious reasons.
Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They ran a _private legal system_. Later, we saw the rise of the Law Merchant standards. If you broke the rules, you were out. It runs on reputation capital. Polycentric law is the order of the society. Most of the cypherpunk memes here are going to require the equivalent of the Maghribi traders. Code and other laws of cyberspace (Lessig, et. al.) are pointing out that the Net has developed a society where one person can be subject to many legal systems. A legal system is not just a state-sanctioned court. Now, these two legal systems are competing. The static legal system is trying avidly to address and stamp out it's new competitor. But there will always be a place for the Maghribi (although the traditional role of a lawyer is now very much in question) where the law does not go, or where it is inefficient. Coming from a traditionalist legal culture, I'm probably the worst person to talk about it. My understanding is that this is an old cypherpunk topic. -Aimee
At 12:32 AM -0600 2/28/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Jim said:
Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'.
It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes it a hard sell for obvious reasons.
Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They ran a _private legal system_. Later, we saw the rise of the Law Merchant standards. If you broke the rules, you were out. It runs on reputation capital. Polycentric law is the order of the society. Most of the cypherpunk memes here are going to require the equivalent of the Maghribi traders.
Code and other laws of cyberspace (Lessig, et. al.) are pointing out that the Net has developed a society where one person can be subject to many legal systems. A legal system is not just a state-sanctioned court. Now, these two legal systems are competing. The static legal system is trying avidly to address and stamp out it's new competitor. But there will always be a place for the Maghribi (although the traditional role of a lawyer is now very much in question) where the law does not go, or where it is inefficient.
Coming from a traditionalist legal culture, I'm probably the worst person to talk about it. My understanding is that this is an old cypherpunk topic.
Yes, we used to talk about this kind of stuff a lot. We had a few people very interested in this kind of stuff in the early days. People like Hal Finney, Robin Hanson, Nick Szabo, myself. Alas, most are long since gone. Polycentric law is still with us, of course. One hundred or more nations, law of the seas, the UCC, etc. Anarchy is the norm in most parts of our lives. However, Aimee, your summary here is very good. I'm pleasantly surprised. Debating with Choate is not useful, however. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
Polycentric law is still with us, of course. One hundred or more nations, law of the seas, the UCC, etc. Anarchy is the norm in most parts of our lives.
Polycentric law is not anarchy. The fact that something is unregulated does not equate to anarchy either. Polycentric law is clearly not equivalent to unregulated either. For each center to communicate and cooperate there MUST be agreements (ie tests of faith and intent) between the factions. Those agreements must, in a large part at least, follow the tenets and beliefs of each party. If there is too disparate a difference between the cultures then no cooperation is really possible. Anarchy is the denial of regulation, not the lack of same. Randomness does not equal anarchy. Most people (actually most life) live lives where one day looks pretty much like the next. Anarchy is not a norm anywhere (ie animal societies or even say a rain forest as an example of a multi-dependent ecology) except in human society. Why? Because there's no possibility for a 'leader' to develop in the first place. Anarchy is a function of human psychology, not some axiomatic aspect of nature. It's a rejection of 'community' in a real sense (consider what happens to a wolf that breaks the pack code). ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They ran a _private legal system_. Later, we saw the rise of the Law Merchant standards. If you broke the rules, you were out. It runs on reputation capital. Polycentric law is the order of the society. Most of the cypherpunk memes here are going to require the equivalent of the Maghribi traders.
Is it? Muslims and Christian traders really didn't use 'private law' in the way we would use it today. Why? Because we are not primarily ruled by our religous beliefs. The reason these examples aren't good ones is they aren't what makes polycratic law polycratic, a bunch of independent EQUAL authorities, they weren't. They all shared a common base infrastructure. This is the same sort of near-miss as the Icelandic anarchist claims that raise their heads once upon a while around here. This raises the primary problem with polycratic law, and one which is clearly evident in the Third Reich, they aren't economic. They each end up fighting for the same scraps and that takes resources better spend for the good of society. It's like watching a pack of hungry dogs fight over the same scraps.
Code and other laws of cyberspace (Lessig, et. al.) are pointing out that the Net has developed a society where one person can be subject to many legal systems. A legal system is not just a state-sanctioned court. Now, these two legal systems are competing. The static legal system is trying avidly to address and stamp out it's new competitor. But there will always be a place for the Maghribi (although the traditional role of a lawyer is now very much in question) where the law does not go, or where it is inefficient.
Actually Lessig is wrong for very one important reason, Open Source software. The real question is whether the people out there will recognize it in time. People are building a technical and physical infra-structure that isn't dependent upon the 'official' technical standards. We are reaching a level of societal complexity where individuals are now abandoning centralized specialization because they have the tools to do many jobs themselves. Law can't be efficient, not in its job description. Law isn't primarily an economic factor (which must be crushing to those cryto-anarchist and free-market mavens that live for the almight God dollar). Law is supposed to be JUST. That it provides equal protection under the law is sufficient. Besides the 'effeciency' of a legal system is irrelevent since it isn't auto-catalytic (ie courts don't make law). The efficiency, if there is any such beast to be had, is in the legislature. Efficiency is not making bad laws in the first place. There is NOTHING in polycratic law that promises to resolve this issue in any manner.
Coming from a traditionalist legal culture, I'm probably the worst person to talk about it. My understanding is that this is an old cypherpunk topic.
Yes, but one which even the old hats haven't resolved. Though some of them will squeel mightily about how 'resolved' it is, references to the archives and such. People have spent their whole lives educating and being educated about centralized homogenous government. What's interesting, at least in this country, is we're actually going backward, lowering the bar. The Declaration of Independence guarantees individual liberty, and we hand it over to a bunch of fat old political farts on a court with way too much authority. An example is the discussion over speech the last couple of days, what amazes me is these people say it's 'my point' when in fact it's the fundamental under-pinning of their very country. AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. In a very real sense the American democratic experiment has failed. It's first death blow was Lincolns inaugural address and the second was the creation of 'artificial people' (ie corporations) for economic reasons in 1870. The first decision killed the Declaration of Independence and the second moved 'rights' from the venue of people to the venue and control of government (in direct contravention to the Constitution, for those who want to argue the opposite please explain where 'business' or 'economic concern' is in the 9th Amendment). ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians used to trade using the Maghribi traders.
I forgot to mention in my earlier reply that the Maghribi themselves were Jewish. It's worth noting that all three religions rely on the same basic texts, just selected and ordered differently. The major distinction between them is how to order and interpret, not fundamental doctrine (ie God, Satan, do good to your fellows, do various things to your enemies, etc.). It's really more a segregation made according to 'state' (ie major religious interpretation) based upon economic pragmatism. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:41 PM 2/27/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
At 8:32 PM -0800 2/27/01, Tim May wrote:
Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining.
A typo. That should be "polycentric law," as in "multiple centers."
--Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Susan I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain, just so I could eat veggies! <ssmall@stny.rr.com>
Tim May said:
This is well-trod ground, even ....
I already know that you always say this. I don't know that it does any good. I'm not going to touch that wild free speech thread.
Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining.
A typo. That should be "polycentric law," as in "multiple centers."
The Maghribi traders, ADR, blinded arbitration, an' all dat: http://calvo.teleco.ulpgc.es/cyphernomicon/chapter16/16.19.html Friedman @ http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/contracts_in_%20cyberspace/contracts_in_c yberspace.htm Now, suddenly free speech and defamation is relevant again, because of it's role in reputation enforcement, at least in ID'd transactions. Nice shot, sir. Now you can say, "This is well-trod ground, even...." Bah. ;-) -Aimee [I'm behind on all my email.]
For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech.
Hmmm...good point. I should have thought of that before. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
At 10:41 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:
I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel? I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech.
But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense.
This is well-trod ground, even for this list.
Citing libel and slander in the context of "free speech" is a slippery slope. For one thing, neither libel nor slander has anything to do with First Amendment issues, which are limitations on censorship, prior restraint, etc. (Even the infamous "Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" is more confusing than illuminating, and certainly has nothing to do with censorship or prior restraint.)
Another thing is that this recent discussion about how Microsoft is "suppressing free speech" is just nonsensical.
The list seems to have some new members lately, or is getting cross posts from other lists.
It's important that folks know what the First Amendment says (apologies to non-U.S. folks) and how the term "free speech" is so often misused.
As for your point about "I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements about my character," boy, have you dialed a wrong number!
For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech.
(And libertarians and other thoughtful persons recognize that incorrect characterizations are their own punishment. This is the concept of "negative reputations." Again, this is well-trod ground: the real debate about "right not to be defamed" turns out to translate to a debate about "unequal powers," as when a newspaper defames a peon. Defamation of you by me is never considered important enough to pass laws over.)
Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining.
--Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 20:32 -0800 on 2/27/01, Tim May wrote:
Citing libel and slander in the context of "free speech" is a slippery slope. For one thing, neither libel nor slander has anything to do with First Amendment issues, which are limitations on censorship, prior restraint, etc. (Even the infamous "Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" is more confusing than illuminating, and certainly has nothing to do with censorship or prior restraint.)
It's illuminating to look at the legal definition of libel/slander. To prove either you have to show that the person had malicious intent AND new that what they were saying was not true. Libel/slander is not a free speech crime, it's a special type of fraud. -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827
Well, it's more like the Nazi's are allowed to march in Jewish neighborhoods under court orders protecting their right to free speech -- which has happened -- it's disgusting, yes, but still has to be allowed to protect everyone's free speech. Note that M$ doesn't believe in free speech for others, however, as we recently saw with them lobbying Congress to do something about "un-American open source" software. David Stultz 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.
lizard wrote:
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!"
Is a judge ordering people to stop making illegal copies of M$ software and sharing it with their friends not also an "intrusion into free speech"? I agree that mandating the relationship between IE and Windows is stupid, mind you - it's an ad hoc after the event remedy, where much more fundamental ones are called for. Danny.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:46:58AM -0800, 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.
I'll go further. The First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust law is not. When the two are in conflict, the law must give way. :) (This is pretty much in jest, you antitrust scholars note. Yes, I have read media antitrust cases, etc.) -Declan
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'll go further. The First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust law is not.
When the two are in conflict, the law must give way. :)
Hmm. This made me think of something blatantly obvious that I had overlooked before. Copyrights are authorized in the main body of the Constitution, but the first ammendment clearly overrides that, so all laws implementing copyright are just as unconstitutional as laws implementing prohibition, and have been for significantly longer. Beer and Bootlegs!
Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be okay?
Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam Smith wrote at great length about. Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology. Positive feedback exists, get over it.
Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical merits when there is a large existing supplier.
That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a medium sized one. There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology. A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - Solaris. When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games. Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy. Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' explain the emergence of a single operating system. I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up since it evidently failed. Phill
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: [...]
Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology.
Positive feedback exists, get over it.
Surely the classic network effect is railway gauge? And about as hard to deny as the sun rising in the east. Ken
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
[...]
Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology.
Positive feedback exists, get over it.
Surely the classic network effect is railway gauge?
And about as hard to deny as the sun rising in the east.
Ken
The crank tank probably dismisses it as being determined mainly by government regulation. Most railway acts had a guage clause. However in the UK the vastly superior broad guage was converted to narrow precisely because of network effects. The crank tank is asking me to distinguish between 'path dependence' (a term I have not used) and 'network externalities'. This is clearly a tactical ploy to try to move the argument to their definitions. It is an Oxford Union debating trick for folk with a weak cause. The original argument was addressed to a public audience. If the crank tank 'Independent Institute' cannot justify their claim in public language they are clearly frauds and should retreat to the house litterature they publish their whacky theories in. The claim the economic effects can only be understood by experts in the field is made to foreclose debate. They want to claim that you and me and everyone on the list that does not agree with them do so out of ignorance. Oh by the way they get to decide who is an expert. The Institute for Historical Reform and the Creationism Study Institute use the same tactic. Phill
Phill gets it halfway right, or put another way is halfway wrong. The question is not whether network effects exist or not; clearly they do in some form. Better questions include whether they have produced inferior results than "someone" desires, how strong they are, and whether state intervention is a good idea because of their alleged ill effects. Phill also is not aware that VHS has some advantages over betamax, and also persists in crankishly calling libertarian groups "right wing." He is clearly an example of a person who needs killing. (*) -Declan (*) Kidding! Kidding! On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:46:55PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be okay?
Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam Smith wrote at great length about.
Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology.
Positive feedback exists, get over it.
Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical merits when there is a large existing supplier.
That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a medium sized one.
There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology.
A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - Solaris.
When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games.
Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy.
Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' explain the emergence of a single operating system.
I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up since it evidently failed.
Phill
I've got a terminology gap here. Somewhere along the line I seem to have conflated "network effects" with the notion that the maraginal cost of any addition to a network will typically be less then the value to the network of that addition. (Yes, "typically" is important, to avoid lumpiness quibbles, such as "a whole new server is a whole new server for one added user," but let's don't quibble.) It sounds like what we're talking about here involves what I would have thought of more as "network externalities." Education, please? MacN On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Phill gets it halfway right, or put another way is halfway wrong.
The question is not whether network effects exist or not; clearly they do in some form. Better questions include whether they have produced inferior results than "someone" desires, how strong they are, and whether state intervention is a good idea because of their alleged ill effects.
At 12:50 AM 3/3/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Phill gets it halfway right, or put another way is halfway wrong.
The question is not whether network effects exist or not; clearly they do in some form. Better questions include whether they have produced inferior results than "someone" desires, how strong they are, and whether state intervention is a good idea because of their alleged ill effects.
Phill also is not aware that VHS has some advantages over betamax, and also persists in crankishly calling libertarian groups "right wing." He is clearly an example of a person who needs killing. (*)
Somewhere in all this discussion of network effects, the very name has somehow been obscured. My god, these are "network" effects! Of course they will be more pronounced on an actual network.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:46:55PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be okay?
Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The
tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam Smith wrote at great length about.
Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were
best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology.
Positive feedback exists, get over it.
Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical merits when there is a large existing supplier.
That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller
medium sized one.
There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology.
A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - Solaris.
When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games.
Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy.
Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' explain the emergence of a single operating system.
I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a
crank the than a divine
attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up since it evidently failed.
Phill
-Colin
participants (23)
-
Aimee Farr -
Colin A. Reed -
Daniel J. Boone -
Danny Yee -
David Honig -
David Stultz -
Declan McCullagh -
Harmon Seaver -
James A. Donald -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Ken Brown -
Kevin Elliott -
lizard -
Mac Norton -
Matthew Gaylor -
Phillip Hallam-Baker -
Phillip M Hallam-Baker
-
Reese -
Susan -
Tim May -
Tom