Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Ted
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 years ago
in Yet Another Ridiculous Software Patent on The Technology Liberation Front
In arguments over this issue in the past, software-patent proponents have raised examples such as the RSA alogorithm, which was a nice bit of non-obvious work which is very easy to copy once it is disclosed (I believe the shortest implementations of RSA fit within 20 or so lines of code).
Of course, I remember my college mathematics professors mocking the RSA patent back in the early 90s -- not because the algorithm is bad or obvious -- but because it is, after all, just math. The RSA patent was essentially a patent on raw mathematics. Imagine if the first guy to figure out triangulation had been able to patent that (or at least its application to measuring stuff at a distance).
All math becomes, at some point, useful in some application. If we allow patents on particular applications of mathematics (such as understanding the difficulty of factoring large primes and its applicability to assymetric encryption, i.e. RSA), then ALL of MATH becomes patentable.
Yet we have traditionally considered math to be facts of nature, and therefore unpatentable.
The contradictions continue. Software patents are an absurdity, unless you want to open up all ideas and facts as privately ownable.
Of course, I remember my college mathematics professors mocking the RSA patent back in the early 90s -- not because the algorithm is bad or obvious -- but because it is, after all, just math. The RSA patent was essentially a patent on raw mathematics. Imagine if the first guy to figure out triangulation had been able to patent that (or at least its application to measuring stuff at a distance).
All math becomes, at some point, useful in some application. If we allow patents on particular applications of mathematics (such as understanding the difficulty of factoring large primes and its applicability to assymetric encryption, i.e. RSA), then ALL of MATH becomes patentable.
Yet we have traditionally considered math to be facts of nature, and therefore unpatentable.
The contradictions continue. Software patents are an absurdity, unless you want to open up all ideas and facts as privately ownable.
3 years ago
in Yet Another Ridiculous Software Patent on The Technology Liberation Front
There is no baby. We need to pull the plug.
3 years ago
in Rosen on P2P and DRM on The Technology Liberation Front
The contrast between what Rosen said when she headed the RIAA and what she says now shows just how insane the RIAA's position is -- not even the most adamant proponent of their position can stomach it unless she is getting a hefty paycheck for compromising logic and reason.
She's still got a lot of the kool-aid in her system, but it is indeed interesting to see what she has to say about how her views have changed (even if she frames these changes as the world changing instead, e.g., "the lawsuits have outlived their usefulness" instead of "the lawsuits were a mistake").
She's still got a lot of the kool-aid in her system, but it is indeed interesting to see what she has to say about how her views have changed (even if she frames these changes as the world changing instead, e.g., "the lawsuits have outlived their usefulness" instead of "the lawsuits were a mistake").
3 years ago
in Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose on The Technology Liberation Front
If the Government would have gone forward with the breakup, all this would have gone away -- the finding of fact in the antitrust case would no longer be binding on third parties, because the situation would have been remedied by the removal of the monopoly.
Since Microsoft convinced the Bush administration to drop the case, Microsoft remains a monopoly and remains subject to special treatment under the law. This is good and just, but certainly not as efficient or good as a structural remedy would have been.
Consumers don't lose when monopolists are restricted. Consumers lose when monopolists are allowed to destroy competition unabated.
The consumer surplus that you claims is destroyed actually is not destroyed. Users who really, really want this PDF generation feature have many choices: Open Office, Adobe plugins for Office, switching to a Mac and OSX, etc. If users don't view lack of integrated PDF creation as sufficient stimulus to migrate away from MS's Monopoly Office product, it must not even be that important of a featuer, no?
Since Microsoft convinced the Bush administration to drop the case, Microsoft remains a monopoly and remains subject to special treatment under the law. This is good and just, but certainly not as efficient or good as a structural remedy would have been.
Consumers don't lose when monopolists are restricted. Consumers lose when monopolists are allowed to destroy competition unabated.
The consumer surplus that you claims is destroyed actually is not destroyed. Users who really, really want this PDF generation feature have many choices: Open Office, Adobe plugins for Office, switching to a Mac and OSX, etc. If users don't view lack of integrated PDF creation as sufficient stimulus to migrate away from MS's Monopoly Office product, it must not even be that important of a featuer, no?
3 years ago
in Adobe Vs. Microsoft on The Technology Liberation Front
Microsoft *is* a monopoly. That finding *was never* overturned (Jackson wisely issued his judgement in seperate rulings -- the origianl punishment was overturned, but the monopoly classification never was).
To be declared a monopolist does not require 100% market share. Share approaching 100% is a good indicator of monopoly power, as are excessive profits, ability to set prices arbitrarily to maximize profit, etc. Hell, even with all the competition in the browser market, IE still wields close to 90% of the market. MSWindows continues to enjoy close to the same marketshare, and MSOffice has penetrated even higher, EVEN IN the presence of strong competition like OpenOffice. In the absence of monopoly power, all of that would be unheard of.
Of course, being a monopoly in itself isn't illegal. But if a monopolist wields that special power unfairly, it is the government's job to step in and knock it down. In the case of Microsoft, we have seen a company that bullies its competitors and partners, threatens to use its monopolies to crush those who don't agree with it, set arbitrary prices with OEMs and charge prices FAR above those of the competition for almost identical products. It can do this *ONLY* because it is a monopoly.
Microsoft is now paying the price for its behavior. By an amazing travesty of justice, it was spared much punishment by the government. The remedies that eventually came out of the trial are a joke. Fortunately, civil suits respect the findings of fact from that trial, subjecting Microsoft to an appropriate (and different) standard of behavior. No one should shed a tear over the fact that Microsoft is now getting a few tiny mosquito bites from competitors -- it's far better for MS than the remedy they deserved: a mandatory break up of its business units.
Because of past bad behavior, Microsoft is still in a very limited 'timeout'. It has payed almost no penalty for its illegal activity to date. Don't whine that it can't add one tiny little feature to its Monopoly word processor.
As for consumers suffering because of this missing feature, they are free to use one of the many alternatives instead, including OpenOffice or the free plugin from Adobe.
You are right: government should not pick the winners and losers -- but this isn't about that. This is about government being derelict in enforcing the laws that it is bound by.
If we let all monopolists off the hook as easily as we let Microsoft off, the country will soon be a centrally-planned utopia, with barons like Bill Gates at the top, controlling production, setting prices, and trying to create supplies that anticipate demand without the benefit of a free market.
Free markets necessarily require competition. Monopolies destroy competition. That is why monopolies are such a threat to capitalism, and must be dealth with specially. For now, we only have the government to help us out here. If you have a better solution, by all means, lets take a look. But to complain that the poor monopolist is suffering because it can't make PDFs is a bit too much for me to stomach.
To be declared a monopolist does not require 100% market share. Share approaching 100% is a good indicator of monopoly power, as are excessive profits, ability to set prices arbitrarily to maximize profit, etc. Hell, even with all the competition in the browser market, IE still wields close to 90% of the market. MSWindows continues to enjoy close to the same marketshare, and MSOffice has penetrated even higher, EVEN IN the presence of strong competition like OpenOffice. In the absence of monopoly power, all of that would be unheard of.
Of course, being a monopoly in itself isn't illegal. But if a monopolist wields that special power unfairly, it is the government's job to step in and knock it down. In the case of Microsoft, we have seen a company that bullies its competitors and partners, threatens to use its monopolies to crush those who don't agree with it, set arbitrary prices with OEMs and charge prices FAR above those of the competition for almost identical products. It can do this *ONLY* because it is a monopoly.
Microsoft is now paying the price for its behavior. By an amazing travesty of justice, it was spared much punishment by the government. The remedies that eventually came out of the trial are a joke. Fortunately, civil suits respect the findings of fact from that trial, subjecting Microsoft to an appropriate (and different) standard of behavior. No one should shed a tear over the fact that Microsoft is now getting a few tiny mosquito bites from competitors -- it's far better for MS than the remedy they deserved: a mandatory break up of its business units.
Because of past bad behavior, Microsoft is still in a very limited 'timeout'. It has payed almost no penalty for its illegal activity to date. Don't whine that it can't add one tiny little feature to its Monopoly word processor.
As for consumers suffering because of this missing feature, they are free to use one of the many alternatives instead, including OpenOffice or the free plugin from Adobe.
You are right: government should not pick the winners and losers -- but this isn't about that. This is about government being derelict in enforcing the laws that it is bound by.
If we let all monopolists off the hook as easily as we let Microsoft off, the country will soon be a centrally-planned utopia, with barons like Bill Gates at the top, controlling production, setting prices, and trying to create supplies that anticipate demand without the benefit of a free market.
Free markets necessarily require competition. Monopolies destroy competition. That is why monopolies are such a threat to capitalism, and must be dealth with specially. For now, we only have the government to help us out here. If you have a better solution, by all means, lets take a look. But to complain that the poor monopolist is suffering because it can't make PDFs is a bit too much for me to stomach.
