From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 15:40:21 MDT
On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 05:03 pm, Hal Finney wrote:
> Harvey writes, quoting Hal:
>>> If you have such laws, then you should support lawsuits even when they
>>> are used to suppress competition. If someone has some property which
>>> is being infringed on by someone else, they have a choice: defend
>>> their
>>> property rights, or ignore the infringement and seek to compete more
>>> vigorously so that they can win despite the disadvantage they face.
>>> We cannot always say that the second alternative is superior.
>>
>> You mistakenly assume that I don't support such laws. I was merely
>> commenting on whether some lawsuits are extropian or other lawsuits are
>> not. I support the law equally in all cases. If people own property,
>> they have the right to make un-extropian choices with it. I support
>> their right to do so. But I still call it un-extropian.
>
> So if Intel builds an expensive new IC fab, and some competitor walks in
> and begins using the facilities to produce their own chips, then you are
> saying it is non-extropian for Intel to try to stop them via a lawsuit?
> That Intel should just suck it up and work harder to compete?
Not at all! Where are you getting this? Read what I wrote more
carefully.
You again mistakenly assume that I don't support such laws. I do
support these laws. I do support lawsuits to defend one's property. In
your example, I support Intel trying to stop them via a lawsuit. I
never said corporations can't defend themselves.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:41 MST