IP: more on Agenda for MS Remedies Workshop

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

> 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.
>
> Dave Farber wrote:
> > I agree with you Jamie did not raise that as a major point at this meeting
> >
> > At 04:46 PM 4/30/99 -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> > > Dave:
> > >
> > > Jamie Love has some good points about the EU/IBM settlement. However, he goes overboard in that he not only 
> > > advocates "open source" as a solution to the Microsoft problem but specifically espouses Richard Stallman's views: 
> > > namely, that intellectual property is at best a bad idea and at worst fundamentally evil.
> > >
> > > To destroy software markets by making all software available for free -- or by taxing computer users to fund the 
> > > creation of free software that competes with honest programmers (a practice which Stallman and Love both advocate) 
> > > -- is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is inappropriate to deprive all software authors of their 
> > > livelihoods as the result of a single company's egregious business practices.
> > >
> > > --Brett Glass
> > >
> > > At 03:25 PM 4/30/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
> > > > I just stopped in for a brief visit while I was in DC so what I will say is very unfair but what the h_ll.
> > > >
> > > > Jamie Love gave a very good talk focusing on the EU settlement with IBM as a model for dealing with such high 
> > > > technology antitrust issues. I am in awe at the EU understanding with respect to software and hardware.issues.
> > > >
> > > > Another talk I heard was much more disappointing. It was from a learned economist who did not understand the 
> > > > software business but had read re Open Source. He kept talking about Standards Bodies and notions of software as 
> > > > a bunch of carvable pieces you could mix and match at fee will.  He seemed to believe on could create software in 
> > > > a day and adapt to changes in a few hours. I am being a bit unfair but it worried me that it is possible that 
> > > > such folk will determine what happens if MS is either found guilty or settles.
> > > >
> > > > We need ver badly to organize education meetings where we try to make them understand our industry, else they 
> > > > will be like the farmer who gets sold the Brooklyn Bridge.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
>
> -- 
> James Love
> Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org
> love () cptech org
> 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176