Finding MS guilty would NOT automatically lead to a breakup. And even if MS wins, the trial has arguably been very valuable in exposing and discouraging some of the MS monoply-maintaining tactics.
Has anyone actually asked Brin what will happen if he is just slightly wrong about the distribution of information gathering? I've seen his basic ideas many times, but nobody ever seems to ask him more than fluff questions
One problem is that the aspect "human" is distracting people. At it's core, this is just another go-around regarding how much of some knowledge should be able to become property. The familiar arguments are there:
1) If you don't give the corporations enough, they won't develop the products vs. 2) Developing a product shouldn't result in a complete monopoly in all cases
I think a basic point in the human genome case is that there was a great deal of public development that needs no post-facto monopolization.
Even if you could legally be compelled to disclose your key, I suspect law enforcement will still have a politically winning argument for PC-tapping. The pitch will be that they need the tapping ability because people seem to develop sudden memory loss from the stress of being caught.
The infrastructure of public-key exchanges and keyserving is still in its infancy. No-one has succeed in scaling it to anywhere NEAR the size of the Internet. That's just ONE problem. How familiar is a nongeek with creating a key and registering it? How many servers would be needed? Just think about it. There's no magic crypto-fix.
"New Katzianism"? "new emerging political philosophy"???
The concept you are struggling to articulate is usually termed "New Deal Liberalism". It's several decades old, mostly born out of severe abuses of corporate power combined with economic depression. Historical roots go back further, to the era of the "robber barons" and even feudalism. Mr. Katz, nice writer he though he may be, did not invent it.
It amazes me, just the thought, the very concept, that there could be an opposition to large concentration of private power, is seen as *unknown*. You've never heard of it before. You've never read anything pre-Net about it before. You can't think of any framework. The only way it's described is as some mutation or bastardization of *Libertarianism*.
Best wishes from a lunatic in Boston:-). I'm sure you'll provide some much-needed coverage, which is sorely needed by a geekdom inundated with rewritten press-releases.
Slashdot Mirror
- The Boston Lunatic
http://whyy.org/cgi-bin/FAshowretrieve.cgi?2708
I recommend it, it's very good listening
- Seth Finkelstein
Finding MS guilty would NOT automatically lead to a breakup. And even if MS wins, the trial has arguably been very valuable in exposing and discouraging some of the MS monoply-maintaining tactics.
-The Boston Lunatic
Feist v. Rural
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/499/340.html
It's a very useful overview of the state of US law.
- Seth Finkelstein
- The Boston Lunatic
The more we have engines like Google, the better the Net will be indexed as a whole.
1) If you don't give the corporations enough, they won't develop the products
vs.
2) Developing a product shouldn't result in a complete monopoly in all cases
I think a basic point in the human genome case is that there was a great deal of public development that needs no post-facto monopolization.
Also, avoid the always-one-minute-before-doom syndrome.
-The Boston Lunatic
- The Boston Lunatic
The infrastructure of public-key exchanges and
keyserving is still in its infancy. No-one has
succeed in scaling it to anywhere NEAR the size
of the Internet. That's just ONE problem. How
familiar is a nongeek with creating a key and
registering it? How many servers would be needed?
Just think about it. There's no magic crypto-fix.
- The Boston Lunatic
*whimper*
"New Katzianism"? "new emerging political philosophy"???
The concept you are struggling to articulate is usually termed "New
Deal Liberalism". It's several decades old, mostly born out of severe
abuses of corporate power combined with economic depression. Historical
roots go back further, to the era of the "robber barons" and even feudalism.
Mr. Katz, nice writer he though he may be, did not invent it.
It amazes me, just the thought, the very concept, that there could
be an opposition to large concentration of private power, is seen
as *unknown*. You've never heard of it before. You've never read
anything pre-Net about it before. You can't think of any framework.
The only way it's described is as some mutation or bastardization of
*Libertarianism*.
That's scary.
Best wishes from a lunatic in Boston :-). I'm sure
you'll provide some much-needed coverage, which is
sorely needed by a geekdom inundated with rewritten press-releases.