On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:30:37 -0700 Steven Schear wrote:

The way I think this could work is legislatures should establish a "friction-free" market penetration percentage (the point at which the difficulty of a participant great lessens due to network effects). When a participant exceeds this threshold their market competitors can sue in federal court to have the market leader stripped of their IP used in that market.

That sounds a bit too complicated. Like you said, the obvious solution is for the government to not create the monopolies in the first place. So all the 'intelectual property' scams like copyright, patents, so called NDAs and the rest have to go. Then again, the only reason government exists is to enforce that sort of criminal garbage so... Well at least one can laugh at the retarded 'progressives' who think that government protects them from monopolies. Then again, those retarded 'progressives' are pretty blind to governmnt failures for some reason...

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 6:23 PM juan wrote:

...

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 16:06:00 -0700 Steven Schear wrote:

...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/18/eu-fine-google-android-an...

...

Instead of fining Google, if the EU really wants to set and example of

how

...

to reign in monopolies, they should recind the IP privilege they granted Google by stripping them of their copyrights (and perhaps patents).

strip them of patents, copyright and throw the assholes in jail...for being an arm of the government? Hmmm. Not likely to happen.

So the government 'fines' google, and google pays using the money they steal from the public. Guess what? among many other criminal activties, google is a tax collector.

That's a second order effect. Their real purpose is to protect their aristocracies from one another or enable theirs to crush another's. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:10 PM Mirimir wrote:

On 07/20/2018 07:46 PM, juan wrote:

<SNIP>

...

Well at least one can laugh at the retarded 'progressives' who

think that government protects them from monopolies. Then again, those retarded 'progressives' are pretty blind to governmnt failures for some reason...

Fundamentally, governments protect people from other governments ;)

<SNIP>

On 07/21/2018 12:20 PM, juan wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:10:26 -0700 Mirimir wrote:

...

On 07/20/2018 07:46 PM, juan wrote:

<SNIP>

...

Well at least one can laugh at the retarded 'progressives' who think that government protects them from monopolies. Then again, those retarded 'progressives' are pretty blind to governmnt failures for some reason...

Fundamentally, governments protect people from other governments ;)

oh yes, in the sense that being enslaved by washington protects you from being enslaved by jefferson and the other slave owners.

I was thinking more like being enslaved by Washington kept them from being enslaved by London. Or France. Or Spain. Even Canada ;) Or in NYC, how each of the Gambino, Lucchese, Genovese, Bonanno and Colombo families protected people from being enslaved by all the rest. Plus the Irish gangs etc. But you're still a slave, which sucks.

...

<SNIP>

NDAs

NDA's are civil contracts matters, unless as sometimes happens, a signing party to them is a govt, then elements could be criminal ie: "top secrets" (wherein free speech should morally apply thus neutering even those cases back to a civil matter, but they aren't because sheeple execute whatever govt says, so some elements could be criminal). Patent infringement usually isn't a crime itself. Copyright and trademark / counterfeit can be. All dependant on jurisdiction.

Fundamentally, governments

are redundant, therefore a needless expense.