http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/patchwork-problems-in-state-laws-hurt-online-commerce/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 22:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/patchwork-problems-in-state-laws-hurt-online-commerce/comment-page-1/#comment-65823 Steve R. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:27:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22965#comment-65823 <p>Braden, I realize that the intent it to promote "No Regulation". Ironically, the post is logically absurd. For example, lets assume that a State law is a proprietary "product", like the iPhone. Well, how come it is considered OK for private companies to have a "patchwork" of different standards, that these different non-interoperable standards are considered innovative, and not considered onerous to the market place? So, continuing with the "no regulation" intent, the owners of all phones should not be "regulated" by the phone companies and they should be able to freely unlock their phones and use any service that they desire.<br><br>While some may consider my analogy weak; I would go on to say - What about the issue of State rights? One of the themes common to this forum is keeping the Federal government out of the regulation business to allow companies (States) to have a degree of freedom. So if companies should be free, as advocated on this forum, to develop their own (proprietary) solutions without the requirement for standardization, shouldn't the State's have the same privilege?</p> Braden, I realize that the intent it to promote “No Regulation”. Ironically, the post is logically absurd. For example, lets assume that a State law is a proprietary “product”, like the iPhone. Well, how come it is considered OK for private companies to have a “patchwork” of different standards, that these different non-interoperable standards are considered innovative, and not considered onerous to the market place? So, continuing with the “no regulation” intent, the owners of all phones should not be “regulated” by the phone companies and they should be able to freely unlock their phones and use any service that they desire.

While some may consider my analogy weak; I would go on to say – What about the issue of State rights? One of the themes common to this forum is keeping the Federal government out of the regulation business to allow companies (States) to have a degree of freedom. So if companies should be free, as advocated on this forum, to develop their own (proprietary) solutions without the requirement for standardization, shouldn't the State's have the same privilege?

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/10/26/patchwork-problems-in-state-laws-hurt-online-commerce/comment-page-1/#comment-63186 Steve R. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:27:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22965#comment-63186 <p>Braden, I realize that the intent it to promote "No Regulation". Ironically, the post is logically absurd. For example, lets assume that a State law is a proprietary "product", like the iPhone. Well, how come it is considered OK for private companies to have a "patchwork" of different standards, that these different non-interoperable standards are considered innovative, and not considered onerous to the market place? So, continuing with the "no regulation" intent, the owners of all phones should not be "regulated" by the phone companies and they be able to freely unlock their phones and uses any service that they desire.<br><br>While some may consider my analogy weak; I would go on to say - What about the issue of State rights? One of the themes common to this forum is keeping the Federal government out of the regulation business to allow companies (States) to have a degree of freedom. So if companies should be free, as advocated on this forum, to develop their own (proprietary) solutions without the requirement for standardization, shouldn't the State's have the same privilege?</p> Braden, I realize that the intent it to promote “No Regulation”. Ironically, the post is logically absurd. For example, lets assume that a State law is a proprietary “product”, like the iPhone. Well, how come it is considered OK for private companies to have a “patchwork” of different standards, that these different non-interoperable standards are considered innovative, and not considered onerous to the market place? So, continuing with the “no regulation” intent, the owners of all phones should not be “regulated” by the phone companies and they be able to freely unlock their phones and uses any service that they desire.

While some may consider my analogy weak; I would go on to say – What about the issue of State rights? One of the themes common to this forum is keeping the Federal government out of the regulation business to allow companies (States) to have a degree of freedom. So if companies should be free, as advocated on this forum, to develop their own (proprietary) solutions without the requirement for standardization, shouldn't the State's have the same privilege?

]]>