IP: END GAME on: more on Agenda for MS Remedies Workshop

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> I wanted to be sure to give also a comment I made about software mix and match. One of the precepts of modern 
> solftware is that modules can much of the time be combined with and interact with  other modules to accomplish  
> functions often not imagined by their authors. Code within those modules may or may not make any sense if pulled out 
> and used.  If we have learned anything from Software Engineering it is the unfullness of modular programming -- again 
> for the record  a  module is not a DLL. And as "Robert J. Berger" <rberger () ibd com> said.
"Its the APIs (and file formats), Stupid"

> djf 


and now



> Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 14:36:28 -0600
> To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
> Subject: Re: IP: more on  Agenda for MS Remedies Workshop
>
> Mr. Love's comments deserve a response.
>
> While I was not at the workshop, I have reviewed Mr. Love's public comments
> on the same subjects in other forums. To avoid any potential confusion about 
> Mr. Love's positions, I will quote him directly.
>
> On Richard Stallman's proposed "software tax:"
>
>  >A 1 percent software tax, with the proceeds spent on the development
>  >of free software, makes a lot of sense to me.  
>
> (From a message posted by Mr. Love to the "am-info" mailing list on October 
> 5, 1998.)
>
>  >...I think it would be a good idea, and I wouldn't call it a handout, any 
>  >more than people who get money to teach school,
>  >built roads or any number of other tasks are getting handouts when they
>  >get paid.  Clinton wanted to spend $250 million on free distance
>  >education software tools.  I thought this was a good idea too. 
>
> (From a message posted by Mr. Love to the "am-info" mailing list on October
> 12, 1998.)
>
>  > I think a 1 percent tax on computers and software, given back to
>  > Universities to hire people to write free software, would be a great
>  > idea, for consumers of software and for universities and workforces. 
>  > And it would probably do more to curb monopolies than DOJ.
>
> (From a message posted by Mr. Love to the "am-info" mailing list on 
> November 10, 1998)
>
> As for Mr. Love's views regarding intellectual property: In a private message
> to me dated February 12, 1999, Mr. Love stated that he agrees "with everything
> RMS [Richard Stallman] says" in the following paragraphs.
>
>  > Piracy
>  > 
>  > Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way,
>  > they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships
>  > on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering
>  > the people on them.
>
>  > If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder,
>  > you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral
>  > terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are available for use 
>  > instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing
>  > information with your neighbor."
>
>  > Theft
>  > 
>  > Copyright apologists often use words like "stolen" and "theft" to
>  > describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the
>  > legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be
>  > wrong.
>  > 
>  > So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system--at least in the
>  > US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is "theft". Copyright
>  > advocates who use terms like "stolen" are misrepresenting the authority
>  > that they appeal to.
>  > 
>  > The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general.
>  > Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws
>  > define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
> At 03:53 PM 5/1/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
>
> > > Sender: jamie () essential essential org
> > > Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 14:37:57 -0400
> > > From: James Love <love () cptech org>
> > > To: farber () cis upenn edu
> > > CC: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>, ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
> > > Subject: Re: IP: Agenda for MS Remedies Workshop
> > >
> > > I am a bit mystified by Brett Glass's comments.  Was Brett even at the
> > > workshop?
> > >
> > > I do not believe that intellectual property is "a bad idea" or
> > > "fundemntally evil," and have never expressed these views.  Nor do I
> > > believe that anyone could or should "destoy software markets by making
> > > all software available for free."  Does anyone really believe this?
> > >
> > > As David Farber indicated, the main part of my talk was to explain the
> > > European Union's 1984 undertaking with IBM
> > > (http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/ibm1984ec.html), which focused
> > > on interoperability issues, and which provides a very useful framework
> > > for thinking about the government's response to anticompetitive problems
> > > in the software industry.  I also introduced the audience briefly to
> > > Simon Garfinkel's earlier paper on disclosure of data file formats
> > > (http://www.hotwired.com/synapse/feature/98/01/garfinkel1a_1.html) and
> > > Richard Stallman's proposed remedies for the Microsoft case
> > > (http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4999.html).  
> > >
> > > I know that Richard Stallman is a controversial person, but his
> > > proposals should be evaluated on their merits.  They were not, as some
> > > might have assumed, a "GPL Windows" type of remedy, but rather specific
> > > recommendations regarding disclosures of software interfaces,
> > > communications protocols, and file formats, plus some remedies
> > > concerning software patents.  I would imagine that many of RMS's most
> > > vocal critics would agree with some if not all of his proposals.
> > >
> > >
> > >    Jamie Love
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Like many, I think that free software and open protocols and standards
> > > are important, and to be encouraged. But like most users, I also gladly
> > > support commerical products.