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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (14925)	12/15/1997 9:42:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Ahem. And perhaps, Mr. Dowd, you're a lawyer with some expertise in antitrust law? Or you have sufficient education from Microsoft to know more than the Judge does? He seems to have called on some good outside expertise in the matter, can you say the same? Or would you prefer to cite a certain novelist cum philosopher, as others have done here?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (14925)	12/16/1997 12:13:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>Who in justice would you have write the code? In cyberspace, because code is so plastic and so powerful, and because law is so feeble and (on an international scale) so rigid, code has a comparative regulatory advantage over law. A gap in legal regulation will therefore emerge, and code will fill that gap. Structures of regulation get codified in the architecture of the net, and these structures of regulation entail important values choices. Whether information will be kept private, whether encrypted speech is allowed, whether anonymity is permissible, whether access is open and free - these are all policy choices made by default by a structure of code that has developed - unaware at times, and, generally, uncritically of the politics that code entails. Some argue that this shows that government should simply get out of the way. That government should let code regulate, and defer to its regulations in this space. But this is quite unlikely. We shouldn't expect government simply to cede jurisdiction over cyberspace to Barlowtypes. Instead, government will shift to a different regulatory technique. Rather than regulating behavior directly, government will regulate indirectly. Rather than making rules that apply to constrain individuals directly, government will make rules that require a change in code, so that code regulates differently. Code will become the government's tool. Law will regulate code, so that code constrains as government wants. Lessig, THE CONSTITUTION OF CODE: LIMITATIONS ON CHOICE--BASED CRITIQUES OF CYBERSPACE REGULATION, 5 CommLaw Conspectus 181, 184 (1997).