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 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
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 naïve, 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
participants (3)
-
James A. Donald -
Jim Choate -
Petro