Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty non-operational now.
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
"OK, so you are a troll. Microsoft is among the most heavily protected-by-regulation companies I can think of. Have you ever seen their patent collection? Can you guess at the size of their infringement-enforcement staff? Do you have any idea how many court-room hours are spent each day protecting their monopoly?" -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like "patent enforcement" == "government protected monopoly", we are at an impasse. I guess having the police keep people from breaking into their offices and stealing their computers is another form of government medaling we would all be better off without? -- TTFN, patrick On Apr 25, 2014, at 18:47 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty non-operational now.
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
"OK, so you are a troll.
Microsoft is among the most heavily protected-by-regulation companies I can think of.
Have you ever seen their patent collection? Can you guess at the size of their infringement-enforcement staff? Do you have any idea how many court-room hours are spent each day protecting their monopoly?"
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like "patent enforcement" == "government protected monopoly", we are at an impasse.
Well, leaving aside what one thinks of patents and copyrights - a "government protected monopoly" is EXACTLY what a patent is, by definition: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Or do you have some different definition of "exclusive Right?" But we digress. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
participants (3)
-
Larry Sheldon -
Miles Fidelman -
Patrick W. Gilmore