From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 17:49:24 MDT
I wrote:
> 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?
Harvey replied:
> 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.
I understand you never said that. And I understand that you support
laws regarding property rights. What confuses me is that you said it
was un-extropian:
> 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.
Aren't you saying it is un-extropian to use lawsuits to suppress
competition? And isn't that what a corporation does when it sues to
stop a competitor from exploiting the corporation's property?
I thought your position was that it would be legal for a corporation to
use lawsuits in this way, but that it was non-extropian. That is what
led to my example above. Note that I did not suggest that it would
be wrong or illegal for Intel to sue its competitor, just that by your
reasoning it wsa un-extropian.
Could you clarify under what circumstances lawsuits to suppress
competition are extropian? And does it make a difference if the person
sueing sees it as a matter of defending his own property rights?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:41 MST