Imagine you own a business that's developing the Warp Engine. So you want to
secure a section of your R&D labs in order to prevent someone from
more-easily gathering up your ideas and jumping ahead of your own
development.
Whether or not that's "anti-competitive" really depends on
your definition of anti-competitive. You have proper competition (which can
reduce competition in a market) and improper competition (deliberately designed
to reduce competition in a market). I would say the example fits in the first
definition while the second defintion should be used in conjunction with the
term anti-competitive.
Strictly speaking, it's too easy to use that
technology to restrict Free Speech. Period.
Sometimes such restriction
is reasonable - as in the R&D example.
Othertimes it's not reasonable
- as in all the takedown notices that are sent to Youtube that target everything
including products the "copyright owner" doesn't even own.
It's just
another tool - and given the mindset of a lot of Proprietary minds, likely to be
used improperly to begin with. Whether the Law eventually catches up and makes
certain uses illegal will be - in my humble opinion - heavily dependent on
whether or not general society catches up.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|