Jim Choate wrote:
The reality is that we don't live in a free-market, but rather a rather lightly regulated one.
Lightly? You jest. No, we certainly don't live in a free market, we have a mixed economy. We *should* have a free market, government distortions are much more destructive and pervasive than any potential abuses by market leaders. Also, the latter abuses are naturally corrected by competition, not necessarily immediate but certainly faster than government distortions which they blame on the market as an excuse for *more* government distortions. The answer for establishing "rules" which insure "fairness," such as preventing an OS vendor from conspiring against a single application vendor and intentionally breaking their product or enforcing artificial incompatibilities, is to create a framework for standards, peer-review, arbitration and liability to enforce "fair" industry practice and competition. Make it a contractually issue and not a criminal one, reputation for punishment instead of life and liberty, and an optional and competitive system instead of a compelled and monopolistic one. An optional system must have an overall and mutual benefit for all parties involved, the government has no such limitation and becomes an instrument for theft. We have two paths for international commerce and regulation, we can continue to the New World Order (NWO), or we can divorce the supporting infrastructure from the geopolitical power base. Matt