6 ms·

Sure--but they chose pragmatically. Proprietary vs. open was not as major a factor as say; not forcing 9 of 10 businesses to re-encode all of their video if the

Sure--but they chose pragmatically. Proprietary vs. open was not as major a factor as say; not forcing 9 of 10 businesses to re-encode all of their video if they want it to work with Firefox.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Yes, it's entirely pragmatic for Apple and Microsoft to choose an option that can't be implemented in Free Software or even free software produced by small companies. Anti-competitive actions are always pragmatic if you're not going to get punished for them. I don't really blame them though. The US government allows software patents and has a terrible patent system that massively favours entrenched interests and blessed the MPEG patent pool which created the current mess. (Bear in mind that the US government spent most of the 20th century breaking up patent pools because they were anti-competitive). People say "there's too many patents around video codecs" but no one stops to ask why. The answer is because anyone who gets a patent into MPEG gets an equal cut of the profits, doesn't matter how small, useless or even counter-productive your idea is. It all adds to the patent thicket that prevents competition. How can anyone say with a straight face that they are choosing a bureaucratic monopoly because quality is so important to them?
- GHFigs 17y ago
  You're saying it's anti-competitive for companies to act in accordance with their own interests rather than go out of their way to support their competitors?
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Yes. Why would acting in their own interests be assumed to be pro-competitive? The "invisible hand" that turns corporate self-interest into something socially beneficial only works when there is free competition and erecting barriers to entry (by excluding those who can't or won't pay patent fees) is by definition anti-competitive. This is why countries like China are pushing for royalty-free standards. Even communist countries understand that open standards and competition are a benefit.
    - BigZaphod 17y ago
      If companies didn't act in their own interests there wouldn't be competition!
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        Can I suggest to you that, if they were not barred from doing so by law, any rational and profit driven business would eventually merge with all its market rivals to form a monopoly and extract monopoly rents? I think the facts of history are on my side here (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act). I am suggesting (in line with what I thought were the commonly accepted tenets of free market capitalism) that their self-interest be channelled, not that this motive is intrinsically bad, just that it is not intrinsically good since externalities and market failures can be exploited in the name of corporate self-interest without any compensating benefit to society. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Forgive me for not understanding, but if I can ask for further clarification-- In your last post, you said: "Anti-competitive actions are always pragmatic if you're not going to get punished for them." From this, I conclude that when you say "anti-competitive", you are referring to actions that ought to be punished. Then, I asked if it was anti-competitive for companies to act in accordance with their own interests instead of aiding competitors, to which you say yes. From this, I conclude that you are saying that acting in one's own self-interest instead of aiding competitors ought to be punished. Where have I made a mistake? erecting barriers to entry (by excluding those who can't or won't pay patent fees) I don't understand. Native h.264 support is not mandatory for competition or spec compliance. h.264 patent fees, and Mozilla's inability/choice to not pay them only constrain what they implement. It does not prevent them from competing or from adhering to the spec. For a counter-example, Mozilla was the driving force behind having Theora made a mandatory part of the spec, which would have excluded any parties who couldn't or wouldn't implement it. Would that have been anti-competitive?

Sure--but they chose pragmatically. Proprietary vs. open was not as major a factor as say; not forcing 9 of 10 businesses to re-encode all of their video if they want it to work with Firefox.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Yes, it's entirely pragmatic for Apple and Microsoft to choose an option that can't be implemented in Free Software or even free software produced by small companies. Anti-competitive actions are always pragmatic if you're not going to get punished for them. I don't really blame them though. The US government allows software patents and has a terrible patent system that massively favours entrenched interests and blessed the MPEG patent pool which created the current mess. (Bear in mind that the US government spent most of the 20th century breaking up patent pools because they were anti-competitive). People say "there's too many patents around video codecs" but no one stops to ask why. The answer is because anyone who gets a patent into MPEG gets an equal cut of the profits, doesn't matter how small, useless or even counter-productive your idea is. It all adds to the patent thicket that prevents competition. How can anyone say with a straight face that they are choosing a bureaucratic monopoly because quality is so important to them?

GHFigs 17y ago
You're saying it's anti-competitive for companies to act in accordance with their own interests rather than go out of their way to support their competitors?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Yes. Why would acting in their own interests be assumed to be pro-competitive? The "invisible hand" that turns corporate self-interest into something socially beneficial only works when there is free competition and erecting barriers to entry (by excluding those who can't or won't pay patent fees) is by definition anti-competitive. This is why countries like China are pushing for royalty-free standards. Even communist countries understand that open standards and competition are a benefit.
  - BigZaphod 17y ago
    If companies didn't act in their own interests there wouldn't be competition!
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      Can I suggest to you that, if they were not barred from doing so by law, any rational and profit driven business would eventually merge with all its market rivals to form a monopoly and extract monopoly rents? I think the facts of history are on my side here (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act). I am suggesting (in line with what I thought were the commonly accepted tenets of free market capitalism) that their self-interest be channelled, not that this motive is intrinsically bad, just that it is not intrinsically good since externalities and market failures can be exploited in the name of corporate self-interest without any compensating benefit to society. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Forgive me for not understanding, but if I can ask for further clarification-- In your last post, you said: "Anti-competitive actions are always pragmatic if you're not going to get punished for them." From this, I conclude that when you say "anti-competitive", you are referring to actions that ought to be punished. Then, I asked if it was anti-competitive for companies to act in accordance with their own interests instead of aiding competitors, to which you say yes. From this, I conclude that you are saying that acting in one's own self-interest instead of aiding competitors ought to be punished. Where have I made a mistake? erecting barriers to entry (by excluding those who can't or won't pay patent fees) I don't understand. Native h.264 support is not mandatory for competition or spec compliance. h.264 patent fees, and Mozilla's inability/choice to not pay them only constrain what they implement. It does not prevent them from competing or from adhering to the spec. For a counter-example, Mozilla was the driving force behind having Theora made a mandatory part of the spec, which would have excluded any parties who couldn't or wouldn't implement it. Would that have been anti-competitive?