6 ms·
And we'd still have people saying that monopolies are only granted by the government, and that without the government, or with a small one, the Free Market(TM)
by ue_ 9y ago
And we'd still have people saying that monopolies are only granted by the government, and that without the government, or with a small one, the Free Market(TM) would sort it all out.
- djsumdog 9y agoI suggest the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Graber shows that markets cannot exists without a state. (Even when anarchists argue about state-less markets, it's usually after a state has fallen and there are still state-like actors around).
- nindalf 9y agoApart from the predatory behaviour, the basis for Intel's monopoly is the hundreds of patents on x86 and it's instructions. Those patents are a government granted monopoly, by definition.
- simonh 9y agoTrue, but irrelevant to the issue of cartel behaviour. Granting limited monopoly rights to people for their own discoveries The can give net benefits to the economy in some cases. Such as patents encouraging investment in technology research. Simultaneously market monopolies established through predatory pricing and cartel deals can stifle innovation and harm customers. There is no single ideologically pure one true best answer in all cases. The real world just doesn't work that way.
- wolco 9y agoOnly if the entity has the power/money or otherwise to protect the patent. In most cases that favours the existing player in the marketplace. If I come up with a unique patentable idea and facebook copies it, I would not have the legal funds to fight such a big entity. The patent is useless unless I team up with another entity big enough to fight that battle. In the end I am better off in an environment with no patents because the ability to defend my patent is beyond me. If facebook patented a slightly modified version they may sue to invalid my patent and prevent my ability to use my idea. Much safer for the little guy to not have patents.