On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:17:50 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>In article <s63o51hrnus8sqnul73e5e4abo8soevdvj@news.speakeasy .net>,
> Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>> You're making the same fundamental error that "rebuttal" article did: You are
>> presuming that the specific implementation by IBM is completely equivalent in
>> all respects to all other possible implementations -- and that's simply not
>> the case.
>>
>> Furthermore, you *cannot* "look and see what TCPA does" simply by examining
>> the hardware, or any given manufacturer's drivers for same. Much of the more
>> ominous functionality is (or will be) actually implemented in much
>> higher-level software (such as the OS and applications programs, for example).
>
>So, basically, the anti-TCPA position is that someone, someday, might be
>planning on at some point doing something bad?

The anti-TCPA crowd I associate with is concerned with the economics
of having a few super corporations dictate price in a controlled
market.