Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel W. Koehler who wrote (44788)	5/14/2000 4:22:00 PM
From: Russ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I should have put a smiley on the last paragraph, If Microsoft feels that the antitrust laws do not apply to them, I say Congress should pass a law specifically exempting Microsoft from both antitrust and copyright laws. We've got to keep the government out of the software industry completely, right? To which you responded Your rhetoric sounds like you favor doing away with due process under the law and replacing it with social engineering and micromanagement of commerce by the Executive and Legislative branches. Actually, I don't. However, I remember that the week after Microsoft was found guilty, Gates went to Washington and passed out some money to Republican Congressmen, and they announced they would hold hearings. I remember several people on the list posting about how wonderful it was, and how Congress should stop the investigation. Well, if we're going to allow some laws to apply to some corporations and not to others, let's do both antitrust and copyright. (Bills of attainder are specifically outlawed in the constitution, so Congress cannot pass any such law.) As far as property is theft, no, I don't think that. (But I did post something critical of Microsoft, so I must be a Communist.;->) Property is a basic right, and the fundamental functions of government include protecting property rights, enforcing contract law, and enforcing antitrust (Adam Smith wrote about the need for antitrust, so antitrust is not a modern, liberal invention.) I posted because I wanted people to be aware of how property rights have varied over time. Many people feel that whatever is the current understanding of property rights, or intellectual property rights, or whatever, is obviously correct, has been for centuries, and all others are wrong. Intellectual property rights (Copyright and Patent, and who knows what other categories will be dreamed up in the next century) have gone through major changes recently, Microsoft (as well as others) has been a major beneficiary, IP laws are enforced through the courts and the power of the government, and Microsoft has been a major beneficiary. The U.S. has always enforced property rights, but did not always enforce intellectual property rights. Amounts of intellectual property rights vary from country to country, and over time. It used to be believed that software was not patentable. Now it is, and the system is a mess. The system will change, and the rules on software patents will look far different 20 years from now than they do now. So Daniel, is IP protection a legitimate function of government, and antitrust not? Or are they both legitimate functions of government? And is IP properly protected, too much, or not enough? I'd like to hear your viewpoint. -Russ