[Re: Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]

[LUIS VILDOSOLA]

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 at 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