From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 19:22:17 MDT
On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 07:49 pm, Hal Finney wrote:
> 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.
For the third time, NO! I do not oppose all intellectual property
lawsuits as unextropian. Lawsuits are merely tools. They can be used
for extropian or nonextropian purposes. You keep trying to position me
into opposing all such laws or all such lawsuits, but that is not my
position!
> 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?
Yes and no. I do not see these as the same thing at all. A company
defending its property is fine. This is not the same thing as
suppressing competition. Fair and legal competition is what I am
talking about. Don't stretch my desire for a free market to allow
piracy and fraud to occur unchecked. A lawsuit to shutdown pirates,
protect intellectual property, and expose fraud, is all good and
extropian. This is not the same thing as suppressing competition at
all. What I mean by suppressing competition is when nuisance lawsuits
with no basis in fact are used to slow down or bankrupt another company
with a superior product. This is a underhanded legal trick used by
companies that can't compete fairly. It is "part of the game", but does
not represent free market competition at all. Because of the
suppression of new ideas and the prevention of fair competition in a
free market, I would call this unextropian. That is what I mean by
suppressing open-market fair competition. They avoid the competition in
the marketplace by sabotaging their opponents before their product
reaches the market.
> 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?
When Luddites try to gain intellectual property rights and patents for
the sole purpose of suppressing technology or preventing technological
advancement, that is unextropian. When a bigger company buys out a
superior smaller company just to destroy its superior product line
rather than improving its own product or competing in the marketplace,
that is unextropian. When a company brings a false allegation against
another, with no basis in fact, just force delays and costs onto
competitors, that is unextropian.
-- 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