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.
>