No Subject

You are emphasizing one of three meanings, and not the most common 
one, either. Definitions 1 & 3 are practical ones, they do not involve
official recognition or sanction. 

In reality, we don't know what definition of "monopoly" is most appropriate
here. As far as I can see, you have thrown us a Red Herring, since neither
Microsoft or Mr. Bandrowsky used the term, and you merely tried to define it!
I would stringly suggest that this wekens your argument, as you include some-
thing unessesary which opens you up to accusations of inteelectual dishonesty.

Liberal - Many meanings, but the most relevent (to social policy) are:
          For the general boadening of the mind.
          One who favors moderate political and social reform.
          
Libertarian - One who beleives that less regulation is inherently superior.
              [-ism] A philosophy that reduces the involvement of govern-
               ment in personal conduct and commerce.

Now, these definitions are substantially the same over time. They don't
nessesarily contradict each other, but it's doesn't seem correct to state
that they are the same, have somehow switched meanings, or occupy some
specific place on the political spectrum.  Some libertarians I know would 
really object to being characterized as "polically left of center"; IMO
their felings would be completely justifieed, as they are social and
economic conservatives.

Your progressive misuse and distortion of definition of words as IMO invali-
dated your point of view; I can't even say I agree or not, because I frankly
have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Can you try again, please?


>"Todd Bandrowsky" <tbandrowsky@del.net>
>>In my humble opinion, there are two simple choices for how we conduct
>>business. Either there is intellectual property rights created by the
>>government, and the government has a right to regulate it, or there is no
>>intellectual property rights created by the government, and such
>>intellectual property marketplaces that do exist are entirely beyond
>>government intervention.
Aw, c'mon! This is an issue that was settled along about 1790! We have a 
trademark office, a Patent Office, an Department of Commerce, and other
regulatory agencies specifically used to administer interstate commerce 
and many kinds of related activity, including intellectual property.
Mr Bandrowsky is entertaining when he poses this question, but in practice
he's arrived on the scene about two centuries too late to get any argument.

>>They can either choose to have a monopoly and put up with reverse engineering
>>and not having patents, or they can choose to be split up.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Those who write from some (poorly
stated, but maybe Ian has taken Todd out of context) political POV often
state things in these black and white terms, as if they were the only
choices.

>>But they can't have both.
In reality, we have both, and more. Bandrowsky, being two centuries behind, 
has the luxury of writing from a purely theoretical standpoint. Our form
of government (not merely the government itself, but civil law and society
in general) has come up with a number has come up with a number of different
practical ways of dealing with these situations, none of which seem to fit
any one political or social doctrine. 

>damaged justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> Wrote:
>There are rights, but they exist independently of any man-made legislation
>or government.
That's the currently fashionable(post-Renaisance, scientific, secular, Western)
reasoning. Recognize that you're writing with that cultural background; these
things are in fact a bit more arbitrary. 

>In any event, it is the fact that people acknowledge property 
>rights (for the most part) that encourages people to write licenses. Some
>are restrictive (commercial software), some are less so (GPL). But everyone
>who creates something is free to set the terms and conditions of its use,
Right; once again we come up to that notion of choice, which is something
that characterizes our society.

>modulo any legal obligations to the contrary -- e.g., GPL forbids certain
>terms and conditions to be set on anything created with a GPL'd tool. 
Yeah, yeah... (waves hands, rolls eyes at technicalities)

>And it is this freedom that has given us an enormous and diverse rain forest
>of free and cheap software.
Among other things. Ther    are economic and regulatory realities that argue
strongly against even wanting to "sell" computer software, unless you're a
large software company. You'll find that most of the people who are involved
in the "free software movement" make their money at at something else, but 
they are software developers in any case.

>BTW, Bob, I do want to respond to your query about my conception of property
>rights and software in more depth -- either I'll get a round tuit in this 
>forum before the next meeting, or you and I can chat about it in person
>(which would probably help keep me from rambling excessively, although I do >tend to focus thought better in email, if only because I have reference >materials by my side and can take as long as I want to reply.
If it's appropriate for the group to read it, that's great, otherwise we
can do this in peroson or by private email. I'm certainly willing to read
and respond to anyone's opinion in this forum, and encourage others to do
so as well.

                                                        Regards,
                                                         ---> RGB <---