Comments on: Tech Law Prof as Prognosticator

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:31:26 +0000

nothing to add about mandalas but as to the “Pro-Market” position on net-neutrality – well, can’t speak for all but for me, net-neitrality is a solution in search of a problem…and a wonderful excuse for the Frederal government to helpfully interject itself into the goings on on the ‘net. Regulation = Costs = Barriers to Entry. I don’t see the benefit to society so I don’t see the need for the government here…& I’ll resist the urge to rant on about anti-trust laws.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:49:53 +0000

I know it’s rather incidental to the post (well, it’s about the only thing there I know anything about!) but just a point of clarification on mandalas: Tibetan Buddhists construct mandalas of colored sand (as did the Navajo!) and then ritually ‘destroy’ them (some agency involved here, so it’s not simply that the wind blows the sand away) to reinforce the Buddhist doctrine on impermanence. Mandalas as such have roots in the Vedic religion (Hinduism; e.g., the ten ‘books’ of the Rig Veda are said to be organized into ‘mandalas’) and sand mandalas are only one kind of mandala: most mandalas are not in fact sand mandalas, although both sand and other mandalas are ritual and meditation aids. A google search will quickly reveal some helpful websites on mandalas and the Wikipedia entry is a decent introduction.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:11:33 +0000

Miriam: Thanks! Well, that sentence was a little over the top…I threw in “mandala” to convey the impermanence of it all….I believe these artworks are usually made of colored sand, and then blown away by the wind soon after they are completed.

MC: My last point in the post above is that, in this field, there really is no free-standing “market” we can refer to. Any player’s current dominance is in large part due to certain regulatory or legal decisions of the government.

In other words, if it weren’t for certain safe harbors in the CDA and DMCA, Google might be long gone by now. Copyrightholders, disgruntled defamed people, etc., would have been able to shut it down (or saddle it with crippling legal expenses) on secondary liability grounds. Moreover, Google’s own business model is predicated on a wide array of government intervention in the IP field.

Google currently feels like it needs net neutrality legislation to continue providign good services and to promote competition generally on the web. What is the “pro-market” position on net neutrality?

By: Miriam Cherry

Miriam Cherry — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:45:22 +0000

It makes little sense to develop a vast architectonic theory for a mandala of protean corporate players

A thought-provoking post, except that I got lost on this sentence… or maybe that just ‘cuz it’s late…

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 03:37:30 +0000

Frank, I enjoyed the show and thanks for being a guest. And the fact that the interview has apparently informed your scholarship is a high compliment! I’m in the process of scheduling other experts in the world of search . . . meanwhile, the lobbying point is worth noting: this, like so many other Internet law issues, is likely on a legislation countdown.

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:48:14 +0000

“If Google’s dominance in the market continues to grow, then one range of regulatory regimes seems necessary.”

So, if Google continues to give the Market what it wants better than others; that signals an increasing need to regulate Google? And what identifiable group – besides lawyers – benefits from that?