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