Re: redisplay system of emacs

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 >     Yes.  There is list on the FSF's web site, but it was chosen for
 >     political correctness and some of it is trash, 
 > 
 > Name calling like this says more about your hostility than about us.

Ad hominem attacks say more about you than they do about me.  There
are people here searching for truth, and such usage is only going to
offend them and make them distrust you on this subject.  I imagine my
many "fans" will be quite amused at you taking me down this way, but
is it really worth it?

Having said that, I am indeed in error.  Going back for confirmation,
I could not find the list I referred to.  The article, indirectly
linked from www.fsf.org, at

          http://endsoftpatents.org/resources-for-economists

is in fact balanced, citing well-done research on both sides of the
aisle.  The page itself is well-written and presents a very difficult
but crucial issue (the "null-result bias" of statistical practice)
quite clearly, though with a slight amount of exaggeration (most
harmless).  The fact that it comes to the conclusion that patents are
bad is neither surprising nor evidence of bias; it's quite reasonable
based on the works cited, which are well-known in the field.

However, it is quite limited, though it would be a reasonable starting
point for a study of patent economics.  It is very much focused on
patents, refers mostly to resources which are either in print or
probably electronically available only with a subscription, and
doesn't really present a starting point for the study the OP seems
interested in.

The list of third-party resources at

         http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/third-party-ideas.html

is less balanced, but describes itself as a list of opinions.  This is
not problematic, either, but the OP probably will find nothing that
really addresses his question.

I do not know where the much more extensive list I recall went.  It
linked or cited a number of articles based on anecdotes of people
whose works were suppressed by the copyright or patent laws which
lacked generalizable analysis, as well as the extremely controversial
and flawed theoretical analysis by Boldrin and Levine (a
representative selection is _Perfectly Competitive Innovation_ <URL
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/pci_august06.pdf>, although I'm
not sure that was the work cited in the FSF's list).  Maybe it was an
earlier version of resources-for-economists that was hosted on
www.fsf.org.

In any case, as far as I can tell that list no longer exists on an
FSF-related site.  I apologize for the misinformation, and thank you
(as a representative of the FSF) for "taking out the trash".

Sincerely yours,