IP: Three follow ons to my comments on MS and WinXP

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Gerry Faulhaber" <gerry-faulhaber () home com>
> To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
>
> Dave, I agree completely.  If the beta clearly demonstrates that MS is doing
> something illegal, then there should be sufficient evidence to seek an
> injunction barring releasel, as the "danger" would be imminent and
> preventable.
>
> But without that clear evidence, prior restraint seems to be government
> overreaching in the extreme.  Recent IPers have tut-tutted over the
> government getting intrusive with mobsters (if they can do it to Nicky
> Scarfo, maybe they can do it to me).  And yet other IPers propose much more
> intrusive prior restraint on Microsoft.  I don't get this: do we think MS
> threatens our professional standards, while Scarfo threatens only the lives
> of people we don't know?
>
> We need to be suspicious of government restraint and intrusiveness, even of
> people and companies we don't especially like.  And we need to be especially
> suspicious of those who call for such restraints on people or companies they
> don't like.  The burden of proof, and it's a heavy one, is on those who
> would restrain.  Not an impossible burden, but a heavy one.
>
> Gerald Faulhaber
> Business and Public Policy Department
> Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
> Philadephia, PA 19104
> 215-898-7860
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:26:47 -0000
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
From: <abogado () swcp com> [ former Commissioner Senior Council at the FCC

Followup question:
Dave-did your comment about sphagetti code v. well defined modules [ I 
endorse modula code djf] mean to
endorse one or the other? My sense of the difference between well defined
modules that can be turned on or off with ease, substituted by other modules a
user prefers and otherwise is segregated from the overall product operating
code, is that it avoids the commingling at issue in the MS case. Deeply
intertwined code would seem to create processing efficiencies that, while
laudable from a technical stand point (processing speeds, storage etc.), and
to some consumers, nonetheless seem to run afoul of the current state of the
law as represented by the COA opinion. The denial of rehearing seems to point
toward the module approach as the legal safe harbor. Thoughts?

I agree with you that a prior constraint on XP is, to quote Michael Powell,
"taking excessive counsel of our fears." WJF

and finally

"did you drink the water during your visit there? " from a friend talking 
about my visit to MS



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/