RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
> Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 -0700 

> The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable"
> markets without some artificial "mechanism."

Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky habit of sticking
terms in there where they don't go hoping somebody won't catch it. We're
talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; provider and
consumer. If I allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit
assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't accept a
bastardization of free-market in that manner.

If you want to expand your argument by the injection of these spurious terms
(they aren't relevant to my argument) feel free. Be warned I will continue
to point out the distinction vis-a-vis the impact on conclusions.

> If you mean dominate by
> market share, then sure that is possible.

I mean *dominate* the market. Quit sticking extra terms in there trying 
to subtly change the meaning. I promise you I will notice so you can quit
now.

> ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the
> bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence
> have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a
> coercive monopoly.

No, that is the definition of monopoly. Now what and how they got and retain
that position may invoke coercion but it *isn't* a requirement for
monoplies by definition. Don't try to confuse method with type.

> You will find that that is not possible without an
> artificial barrier to competition.

Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it implies that given
sufficient time *any* market strategy will fail. In other words there is no
best or efficient strategy for a given market. In the past when this has
been brought up I've asked for an explanation of how this dynamic works and
specificaly what prevents such best-of-breed examples from existing.

I'm still waiting for such an explanation.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 8:56 AM -0500 10/8/98, James A. Donald wrote:
>At 04:19 PM 10/6/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>> Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky
>> habit of sticking terms in there where they don't go hoping
>> somebody won't catch it. We're talking a free-market, there
>> are *only* two participants; provider and consumer. If I
>> allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit
>> assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't
>> accept a bastardization of free-market in that manner.
>
>Then your argument that free markets lead to monopoly collapses.
>
>You cannot have monopoly (in the sense of the power to extract monopoly of
>profits) except by state intervention as has been proven by experience time
>and time again.
>
>You have been unable to provide any examples of monopolies except those
>created by state intervention, such as the railaways, and those existent
>soley in your fevered imagination, such as the garment industry.
>

	Given that the textile/garment industry is often one of the first
and loudest pro-tarif voices, there might be a government manipulation
arguement there as well.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent.
Inc.::petro@playboy.com::petro@bounty.org

At 04:19 PM 10/6/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky
> habit of sticking terms in there where they don't go hoping
> somebody won't catch it. We're talking a free-market, there
> are *only* two participants; provider and consumer. If I
> allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit 
> assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't
> accept a bastardization of free-market in that manner.

Then your argument that free markets lead to monopoly collapses.

You cannot have monopoly (in the sense of the power to extract monopoly of
profits) except by state intervention as has been proven by experience time
and time again.

You have been unable to provide any examples of monopolies except those
created by state intervention, such as the railaways, and those existent
soley in your fevered imagination, such as the garment industry.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     LYz7nvyPxn5hJWCXB0WcID5+PVA+dhSjuuYvr+XY
     4UUZjd22g+i9n8TWluBRaLIz63RwJtaCWan7vyEZI
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald