Capitalism and monopolism

[Steve Schear]

At 09:12 AM 5/6/2003 -0700, "Major Variola (ret)" <mv at 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
>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%, 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
>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