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

[David Stultz]

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.
>