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

[Harmon Seaver]

      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.
> >