From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 19:40:35 MST
Wei Dai writes:
> I haven't followed the Palladium debate too closely myself. Do you think
> any of the arguments against it are reasonable? If not why are people so
> worked up about it?
Basically there are two classes of arguments against Palladium that I
have seen. The first is that it might be made mandatory, and the second
is that it might become very common even if not mandated and reduce the
flexibility of computing systems.
I approach the technology from a libertarian perspective, and my default
presumption is that any voluntary technology is perfectly fine. And I
define voluntary rather broadly, to include systems which are de facto
monopolies simply because everyone prefers to use them. I think that most
of the so-called horrible crimes that Microsoft is accused of are actually
completely reasonable and appropriate behaviors in a free market system.
As far as I know Microsoft has not sent any thugs around to beat people
up or to coerce them at gunpoint. I don't even think they have been
particularly aggressive in leveraging government's coercive power,
at least compared to many businesses.
It seems that my feelings on these matters are 180 degrees out of phase
with most people's in the online community. Microsoft is seen as evil and
any technology which could increase their control over computing systems
is evil as well. I say that Microsoft is one of the best companies
in the world and any technology which they offer has to compete in the
marketplace with everyone else's. In the end I am looking at it from a
perspective where the question is almost moot: of course Palladium is
good, because every technology that has to compete in the marketplace
is good. This is not a widely shared view.
As for the fears about government mandating of these technologies,
I agree that this would be very bad, and to the extent that Palladium
might invite such mandates I would agree with this criticism. However I
don't particularly see that this technology as one which is likely to be
made mandatory. If it succeeds in the market, then requiring it would
be redundant. And if it does not succeed, then forcing all systems to
be retrofitted with Palladium technology would be so expensive that the
opposition would be immense (not even considering the political outcry).
> Speaking of alternative approaches to handling intellectual property,
> here's a proposal I made on another mailing list:
>
> http://www.weidai.com/measuring.txt
>
> and some follow up discussion with Robin Hanson:
>
> armchair@gmu.edu/msg02481.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/armchair@gmu.edu/msg02481.html
That's very interesting, I will try to respond in another message.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 19:49:34 MST