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

[Declan McCullagh]

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