RE: Capitalism and monopolism
At 09:51 PM 5/5/03 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
I gave a presentation at a conference a few years back in which I
the idea that since Intellectual Property (e.g., trademarks) aren't (property), its really a lease, that our society should consider setting limits on the market penetration (say 50%, which is already in excess of the what many economists call the "friction free" point wherein companies can continue to gain market share merely by dint of their already considerable presence) of single companies in markets whose size (the therefore probably importance) exceeds some minimum threshold of the GDP. However, instead of enforcing these limits via the Department of Justice, they would become a civil matter and one's competitors can use
raised the
courts to strip a company of its sole lease on a trademark or patent applied to this market.
A few questions. First, could this be done under the US constitution, or is it fiddling too much with the intent of the prescription that the USG support these? Second, who would judge market penetration? Could PC vendors sue Apple for overpenetration in the graphics market? Also, I don't think you want to do this with trademarks ---they're merely for IDing a manufacturer for reputation purposes. They precede and transcend the US; cf bin Laden heroin. With patents, I suspect the best you could do would be to fiddle with the expiration policies ---something for which there is ample precedent. Of course, other nations are free fnord to alter their laws. And this of course assumes that one of Kim's nukular missiles takes out Hollywood before Hollywood takes over the USG. ----- "Naturally the common people don't want war...But, after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." --Hermann Goering, (1893-1946) Nazi Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg Trials, 4/18/46. From _Nuremberg Diary_ by Gustave Gilbert.
At 09:12 AM 5/6/2003 -0700, "Major Variola (ret)" <mv@cdc.gov> wrote:
At 09:51 PM 5/5/03 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
I gave a presentation at a conference a few years back in which I
the idea that since Intellectual Property (e.g., trademarks) aren't (property), its really a lease, that our society should consider setting limits on the market penetration (say 50%, which is already in excess of the what many economists call the "friction free" point wherein companies can continue to gain market share merely by dint of their already considerable presence) of single companies in markets whose size (the therefore probably importance) exceeds some minimum threshold of the GDP. However, instead of enforcing these limits via the Department of Justice, they would become a civil matter and one's competitors can use
raised the
courts to strip a company of its sole lease on a trademark or patent applied to this market.
A few questions. First, could this be done under the US constitution, or is it fiddling too much with the intent of the prescription that the USG support these?
Considering the latitude to which the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to interpret "limited time' I doubt they would mind. Ask Larry Lessig :)
Second, who would judge market penetration?
Good question. Because of the difficulty, I was inclined to focus on only markets which make up a substantial fraction of the GDP. These have been tracked, relatively well, by the Department of Commerce's Standard Industry Codes (SICs). Microsoft falls under software publishing. I would propose that, for purposes of aiding implementation of this IP regime, these codes be broken down into segments which exceed some minimum (say at least 10%) of the original SIC.
Could PC vendors sue Apple for overpenetration in the graphics market?
Not likely. See above.
Also, I don't think you want to do this with trademarks ---they're merely for IDing a manufacturer for reputation purposes. They precede and transcend the US; cf bin Laden heroin.
Trademarks are of primary importance. Imagine what would happen if MS lost any control of the term Windows (indeed they might anyway) related to OS user interfaces. steve
At 09:12 AM 05/06/2003 -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 09:51 PM 5/5/03 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
I gave a presentation at a conference a few years back in which I raised the idea that since Intellectual Property (e.g., trademarks) aren't (property), its really a lease, that our society should consider setting limits on the market penetration (say 50%,
...
A few questions. First, could this be done under the US constitution, or is it fiddling too much with the intent of the prescription that the USG support these? Second, who would judge market penetration?
It's not politically feasible, so the discussion's moot. It's probably not constitutionally feasible - patents and copyrights are grants of monopoly for a limited amount of time, and while I suppose they might be able to get away with "Term of small-N years, extensions available under such-and-such conditions", it'd be pretty tough to pull that one off. Writing clear enforceable definitions of terms is likely to be impossible also. If you've got a patent on producing Unobtanium, then you've got 100% market penetration, but if you've got a patent on some particular method to speed up some common process by some small percent, you might have 1% market penetration because other people have other methods of speeding it up. The difference isn't the quality of innovation, it's the definition of "the market" implied by the type of innovation. Trademarks, as Variola points out, aren't really the problem here, though there are certainly annoying conflicts between trademarks of products (where multiple types of things can have the same name) vs. domain names (where there can be only one), and control of DNS by the trademark forces appears to have been one of the main motivations for ICANN. (It's not just the control of the namespace - it's the insistence that everybody who does DNS registration everywhere be required to collect True Names and True ICBM-and-Subpoena-delivery addresses from registrants that's the really ugly problem.)
And this of course assumes that one of Kim's nukular missiles takes out Hollywood before Hollywood takes over the USG.
Before? Sorry, but you're going to have to send Ahnold back in time to do that. We've had the Gipper, Mr. Rogers's Evil Twin Skippy, Elvis with the sex scandal and The War in Albania (except that the scandal was used to cover up the war more than the other way around), Right-Wing Republican Pod People, your favorite Kafka-inspired movies, most of the cast of Dr. Strangelove popping in and out of various administrations, and of course the Sonny Bono Almost-but-not-quite-Permanent Copyright Extension Act.
At 7:22 PM -0700 5/6/03, Bill Stewart wrote:
Before? Sorry, but you're going to have to send Ahnold back in time to do that. We've had the Gipper, Mr. Rogers's Evil Twin Skippy, Elvis with the sex scandal and The War in Albania (except that the scandal was used to cover up the war more than the other way around), Right-Wing Republican Pod People, your favorite Kafka-inspired movies, most of the cast of Dr. Strangelove popping in and out of various administrations, and of course the Sonny Bono Almost-but-not-quite-Permanent Copyright Extension Act.
Is Bill Stewart starting the channel John Young? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
participants (4)
-
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
Major Variola (ret) -
Steve Schear