3 ms·

> Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. Markets are regulated to enable monopolies. Bell would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't t

> Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. Markets are regulated to enable monopolies. Bell would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't the regulation involved in laying copper and Microsoft would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't intellectual property regulation.

bigfudge 3y ago
For Bell, presumably the goal was to provide a monopoly to achieve an otherwise difficult goal: universal service. That's certainly the case with the post office in the UK (although now being eroded). For Microsoft: I think that's a weird argument. Plus I think there would have been lots of things pushing towards a single big player for desktop computing in the early-middle days (network effects).
- randomdata 3y ago
  No matter what the goal was, it remains that other players would have jumped in if there wasn't the legal impediments. But such regulation provided a moat in which they were able to build their monopoly. Same goes for Microsoft. Everyone and their brother would have released their own 'Windows' if regulation weren't there to disallow it. Again, that regulation offered a moat which allowed them to establish their monopoly.
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    From a long perspective I think the bell monopoly probably served an important purpose and may have been worth it. Not having universal service would have been socially divisive and culturally a problem. I think we need to stop judging things only on (presumed/assumed) economic efficiency. Non monetary values mean regulation is often important. We accept this with environmental and health/safety rules to some degree - I wish we could develop a language to argue for it more in other spheres. On the Ms point.. is your argument that we should have no intellectual property rights for software at all? It seems odd to single out only this example. I’m broadly not in favour of software patents but I’m not clear that they were relevant to MS success anyway. I think you need to make a clearer argument about what regulations we would have forgone for others to really evaluate your case.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > is your argument that we should have no intellectual property rights for software at all? Obviously not. That would require opinion, and sharing opinion is in bad faith. Discussion is merely for talking about how the world is. And as the way the world is, a monopoly needs some kind of moat to emerge. Intellectual property regulation exists to enable such moats. > It seems odd to single out only this example. Why? One example is all that is necessary to convey the idea. But also, it is the only convicted monopolist in that respect that I could think off off the top of my head. Google was recently charged, but not yet convicted, so I could not include them. I am not about to suggest that other companies are monopolies based on my opinion. That, again, would be in bad faith. But, theoretically, the same could apply to other companies. It is not something that needs to be strictly limited to Microsoft.

bigfudge 3y ago

For Bell, presumably the goal was to provide a monopoly to achieve an otherwise difficult goal: universal service. That's certainly the case with the post office in the UK (although now being eroded). For Microsoft: I think that's a weird argument. Plus I think there would have been lots of things pushing towards a single big player for desktop computing in the early-middle days (network effects).

randomdata 3y ago
No matter what the goal was, it remains that other players would have jumped in if there wasn't the legal impediments. But such regulation provided a moat in which they were able to build their monopoly. Same goes for Microsoft. Everyone and their brother would have released their own 'Windows' if regulation weren't there to disallow it. Again, that regulation offered a moat which allowed them to establish their monopoly.
- bigfudge 3y ago
  From a long perspective I think the bell monopoly probably served an important purpose and may have been worth it. Not having universal service would have been socially divisive and culturally a problem. I think we need to stop judging things only on (presumed/assumed) economic efficiency. Non monetary values mean regulation is often important. We accept this with environmental and health/safety rules to some degree - I wish we could develop a language to argue for it more in other spheres. On the Ms point.. is your argument that we should have no intellectual property rights for software at all? It seems odd to single out only this example. I’m broadly not in favour of software patents but I’m not clear that they were relevant to MS success anyway. I think you need to make a clearer argument about what regulations we would have forgone for others to really evaluate your case.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > is your argument that we should have no intellectual property rights for software at all? Obviously not. That would require opinion, and sharing opinion is in bad faith. Discussion is merely for talking about how the world is. And as the way the world is, a monopoly needs some kind of moat to emerge. Intellectual property regulation exists to enable such moats. > It seems odd to single out only this example. Why? One example is all that is necessary to convey the idea. But also, it is the only convicted monopolist in that respect that I could think off off the top of my head. Google was recently charged, but not yet convicted, so I could not include them. I am not about to suggest that other companies are monopolies based on my opinion. That, again, would be in bad faith. But, theoretically, the same could apply to other companies. It is not something that needs to be strictly limited to Microsoft.