3 ms·

There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have n

There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have no concept of eminent domain [0] when it comes to technology, data, or intellectual property. If it's in the public interest to build a bridge, lay train tracks, etc., your private property can be purchased against your wishes at a fair market price. When it comes to things like open APIs, protocols, interoperability, data portability, even patents, I wonder if it might every make sense to leverage this legal framework to build true network commons out of privatized silos (while compensating shareholders), as opposed to the old "break up AT&T into multiple companies" model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

anm89 7y ago
As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  You know, when someone wants to buy a public company, Joe Schmoe doesn't get to say "I'm only selling my 10 shares for $1 million apiece!" Is this an outrageous affront to property rights, or is it something you just take for granted because you don't see the connection to the government?
  - anm89 7y ago
    What???This is totally incoherent. Yes that's exactly how it works. Joe can ask for whatever price he wants and if he doesn't get that price then he has to keep holding the asset. An individual asking an unfair price for stock they own would not hold up the sale of other shares in the company in most (all?) cases unless they are the primary stake holder
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Typically, if the shareholders vote to accept an offer by someone to buy a public company, everyone including the people who were against it is involuntarily cashed out at the price that was accepted by the majority. This is a pretty common experience for anyone who owns growth stocks. It's why you can't just get rich by finding a fantastic public company, it has to stay public and independent. Common sense should tell you that there must be some mechanism to deal with holdouts any time a collective action problem is overcome.
- lukifer 7y ago
  Assuming the "fair market value" clause is honored (to the extent such a thing is possible!), it's not quite as bad as explicit theft. Nonetheless, I take your point. While I can imagine a number of public works projects that are painfully difficult to achieve through only voluntary coordination[0], it's also clearly an easily corruptible mechanism. That said, I can actually imagine such a practice being more valid for intellectual property, given that IP law is a purely artificial construct of the state (as opposed to natural law governing land and physical property). Perhaps the "eminent" part is unnecessary, and the government could simply negotiate a price for certain IP and/or data to be bought and put into the public domain? Just spitballing. The trend to consolidation based on Metcalfe's Law[1] represents a very real conundrum for vibrant competition of products and services whose primary value is the network itself. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
  - anm89 7y ago
    That's a big "assuming". I wouldn't want someone assuming when it was my house getting bulldozed.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft. Actually, “eminent domain” refers to the basic model of property ownership: the fact that ultimate title is held by the sovereign and only limited, conditional, subordinate title given to others. You can't steal what is already yours.

anm89 7y ago

As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.

perl4ever 7y ago
You know, when someone wants to buy a public company, Joe Schmoe doesn't get to say "I'm only selling my 10 shares for $1 million apiece!" Is this an outrageous affront to property rights, or is it something you just take for granted because you don't see the connection to the government?
- anm89 7y ago
  What???This is totally incoherent. Yes that's exactly how it works. Joe can ask for whatever price he wants and if he doesn't get that price then he has to keep holding the asset. An individual asking an unfair price for stock they own would not hold up the sale of other shares in the company in most (all?) cases unless they are the primary stake holder
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Typically, if the shareholders vote to accept an offer by someone to buy a public company, everyone including the people who were against it is involuntarily cashed out at the price that was accepted by the majority. This is a pretty common experience for anyone who owns growth stocks. It's why you can't just get rich by finding a fantastic public company, it has to stay public and independent. Common sense should tell you that there must be some mechanism to deal with holdouts any time a collective action problem is overcome.
lukifer 7y ago
Assuming the "fair market value" clause is honored (to the extent such a thing is possible!), it's not quite as bad as explicit theft. Nonetheless, I take your point. While I can imagine a number of public works projects that are painfully difficult to achieve through only voluntary coordination[0], it's also clearly an easily corruptible mechanism. That said, I can actually imagine such a practice being more valid for intellectual property, given that IP law is a purely artificial construct of the state (as opposed to natural law governing land and physical property). Perhaps the "eminent" part is unnecessary, and the government could simply negotiate a price for certain IP and/or data to be bought and put into the public domain? Just spitballing. The trend to consolidation based on Metcalfe's Law[1] represents a very real conundrum for vibrant competition of products and services whose primary value is the network itself. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
- anm89 7y ago
  That's a big "assuming". I wouldn't want someone assuming when it was my house getting bulldozed.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft. Actually, “eminent domain” refers to the basic model of property ownership: the fact that ultimate title is held by the sovereign and only limited, conditional, subordinate title given to others. You can't steal what is already yours.