At 4:50 PM -0400 7/17/00, murr rhame wrote:
>As you may have noticed, I'm strongly opposed to unverified
>$ubscriptions... This could be a very important case indeed.
Definitely, on all sorts of levels.
I'm going to not comment on it, other than to say I'm going to keep
an eye on it. I can argue all sorts of issues all sorts of ways, and
I'm curious to see both sides put the cards on the table.
>We'll see what the courts say.
Hopefully. Unless someone blinks. And it'll be interesting to see if
"the media" picks up on this and figures out what's going on, because
this case has sort of slid under the radar screen so far, and has all
sorts of issues, including those of self-defined standards and how
far they can be imposed on others, and the limits (if any) to that
approach on the larger internet (i.e, when does a group like MAPS
become large enough that it wields enough power that it should no
longer be allowed to do so without some official endorsement)
chuq
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
