Comments on: Another Step in the Right Direction

By: Chief Nut

Chief Nut — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:34:21 +0000

Hmmm… I think “shades of gray” is also an understatement. It’s more like a paint factory explosion … but definitely NOT black and white.

By: Mike Persson - NH Patent Attorney

Mike Persson - NH Patent Attorney — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:15:06 +0000

You say that a well crafted net neutrality reqirement would not restrict the creation of new inventions but would disallow competitive restrictions on the innovation. Getting past my skepticism that Congress would be able to draft and pass a “well crafted” net neutrality requirement law, what would such a law look like?Would companies who innovate be forced to share these innovations with competitors, or would this not be a “competitive” restriction? Would well financied companies be able to drive competitors out of the market by forcing them to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their networks so that new technologies developed by the well financed companies will work on their networks? If not, how do you tell the difference between a company making a financial decision about not upgrading to accomodate a competitor’s technology and one making an “anti-competitive” one? A well crafted law would need to deal with these issues and many others.

This issue seems less black and white and more like shades of gray to me…

By: Chief Nut

Chief Nut — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:51:48 +0000

Hi Mike,

Have I told you lately that I LOVE your input and perspective?!

I AGREE WITH:
being “… against companies setting up false barriers to prevent customers from using their competitors innovations on their networks.” In fact, this is my only REAL beef in the larger issue.

I DISAGREE WITH:
The “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” comment. I think a well crafted net neutrality requirement would not restrict the creation of new innovations, however, it would disallow competitive restrictions on the innovation.

In short, I don’t think the issue is one of restricting “creation” … I think it’s an issue of restricting “access” or “openess”.

By: Mike Persson - NH Patent Attorney

Mike Persson - NH Patent Attorney — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:41:42 +0000

Net neutrality has its allure as a concept. People see it as leveling the playing field and we all like fairness. Hoever, I believe the the concept of net neutrality is far too simplistic and that imposing it will create unwanted and unfair results that would be avoided if we continue to evaluate these issues on a case by case basis.

Like most people, I am against companies setting up false barriers to prevent customers from using their competitors’ innovations on their networks, or from interacting with networks that have these innovations. This anticompetitive behavior should be discouraged, as it retards technological innovation.

However, I agree with Bob Kahn’s observations that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” if a net neutrality law or regulation passes and that “if the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else’s net.” This applies to new technologies that one provider has and wont share, which spurs technological innovation and is honest competition that should be encouraged.

In law school we always talked about the conflict between certainty and fairness of the law. When absolute rules are made, they provide a certain level of certainty to people. However, most issues are not black and white but, rather, are infinite shades of grey and absoute rules, of which I see “net neutrality” as one, dont take this into account.

As always, I am only a patent attorney. What the heck do I know?