5 ms·

Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally u

Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.

drchaos 2y ago
One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.
- Certhas 2y ago
  The irreducible state role in a free market is to enforce property rights. Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.
    - AstralStorm 2y ago
      Thing is, HDMI forum is not a monopoly. It's a literal cartel of a few corporations and other cartels. Other cartels pushing for it include MPAA.
      - Y_Y 2y ago
        The monopoly here is HDMI LA, who provides the required licenses. > HDMI® Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA) is the agent appointed by the HDMI Forum to license Version 2.1b of the HDMI Specification and is the agent appointed by the HDMI Founders to license earlier HDMI Specifications. https://hdmi.org/adopter/index https://hdmi.org/adopter/index See also: https://www.symmetryelectronics.com/blog/what-are-the-licensing-costs-associated-with-hdmi/ https://www.symmetryelectronics.com/blog/what-are-the-licens...
    - Certhas 2y ago
      Mostly I think the person who mentioned that this is free markets working as free markets is largely right. You can't defend free markets on the basis that property rights are enforced by the state, and thus somehow changing the free market outcome. I also think critizising intellectual property on grounds of granting a monopoly is muddling the language. If I write a novel I have exclusive rights to the novel. But I am not the only supplier of mediocre novels. I don't have a monopoly in a relevant market. None of this contradicts the point that IP and patent rights are in desperate need of reform, or that they can play a central role in abusing a monopoly position (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard). Edit: Maybe my post was unclear: I would agree that IP should be abolished. But this is not a position I have seen classical market liberals and other free market advocates take. Instead, they tend to favor strengthening all forms of property rights. If I am wrong on this point, I'd be happy to read some examples.
      - Y_Y 2y ago
        I don't think we disagree, I would just like to add that this subtlety about "monopoly" depends on the (subjective) existence of substitute goods. Maybe as a consumer I just want any old book to read and so an individual author has no market control. On the other hand you can imagine, say, a technology that's practically or actually unavoidable as an input for a particular business (suppose HDMI had no viable alternative), then the IP holder could extract super-normal profit and make the economy less efficient.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Microsoft ? RIAA ? MPAA ? Google (AI, books)
obirunda 2y ago
Monopolies form easily? That's funny, you should try and start one, seems quite profitable. Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion. IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies without IP laws. IP laws are the ultimate king maker and exclusively exist to perpetuate profits of the IP owner. If your proposition of regulation is to disband the patent offices and repeal the copyright act, my sincere apologies.
- Rodeoclash 2y ago
  If only the free market was even more free, all our problems would be solved!
  - atoav 2y ago
    The invisible hand of the free market will come and fix all the things! /s If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others. Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good.
    - obirunda 2y ago
      You're conflating several schools of thought. Utilitarianism, which appears to be your basis for defining ethical behavior, underlies this reasoning behind compulsory government action. This line of thinking is often repeated in election cycles and mindless online discussions, with mantras like "We justify doing something heinous because it serves 'American Interests'" or "We'll coercively tax one group and redistribute funds to another because they'll do something dubiously for the 'greater good'". However, Utilitarianism is not a foundational principle of libertarian ideology. In fact, libertarianism often refutes and rejects it as applied to governments. It doesn't prioritize egalitarianism or rely on public opinion when defining citizens' rights. The argument for a free market unencumbered by protectionist policies isn't about the greater good; rather, it's an argument for an ethical government grounded in first principles. The "greater good" argument tends to crumble under close examination and logical scrutiny. Its claims on reason collapse as soon as you scrutinize them more deeply. Notably, Utilitarianism has been the basis for nearly all modern-day dictatorships, which rely on a monopoly of violence to enforce the "greater good". It's possible to support free markets while still caring for others – this is called altruism. It's similar to utilitarianism but without coercion and fallacies.
account42 2y ago
Actually these monopolies are enforced by the state via IP laws. Without IP laws any upstart could reverse engineer the protocols and provide an implementation with less limitations. But of course free market enthusiasts like to ignore that part and only rant against the government when it protects consumers from companies.
- rini17 2y ago
  Yes, if there were no IP anyone could cheaply make a single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASIC to provide the alternative 4K-capable video hardware implementation. /s
  - ozfive 2y ago
    Single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASICs aren't really required to achieve this. Although there is higher latency this can and has been done on FPGAs at a company I worked for which designed and built custom AVOD systems for private jets and helicopters.
  - miki123211 2y ago
    Anyone? No, probably not. Some enterprising company in Shenzhen, who would sell the thing for $.25 a piece due to fierce competition driving prices down to cost of materials? Now that's more likely.
- roenxi 2y ago
  There are a huge number of free market types who are against IP laws and they're a big part of computing culture. Names like the FSF [0] spring to mind. A market can't expose a fraction of its potential if people are banned from competing because someone else got there first. The only reason the software world did so well was because the FSF managed that inspired hack of the copyright system known as the GPL that freed up the market, in fact. [0] https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/

Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.

drchaos 2y ago

One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.

Certhas 2y ago
The irreducible state role in a free market is to enforce property rights. Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    Thing is, HDMI forum is not a monopoly. It's a literal cartel of a few corporations and other cartels. Other cartels pushing for it include MPAA.
    - Y_Y 2y ago
      The monopoly here is HDMI LA, who provides the required licenses. > HDMI® Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA) is the agent appointed by the HDMI Forum to license Version 2.1b of the HDMI Specification and is the agent appointed by the HDMI Founders to license earlier HDMI Specifications. https://hdmi.org/adopter/index https://hdmi.org/adopter/index See also: https://www.symmetryelectronics.com/blog/what-are-the-licensing-costs-associated-with-hdmi/ https://www.symmetryelectronics.com/blog/what-are-the-licens...
  - Certhas 2y ago
    Mostly I think the person who mentioned that this is free markets working as free markets is largely right. You can't defend free markets on the basis that property rights are enforced by the state, and thus somehow changing the free market outcome. I also think critizising intellectual property on grounds of granting a monopoly is muddling the language. If I write a novel I have exclusive rights to the novel. But I am not the only supplier of mediocre novels. I don't have a monopoly in a relevant market. None of this contradicts the point that IP and patent rights are in desperate need of reform, or that they can play a central role in abusing a monopoly position (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard). Edit: Maybe my post was unclear: I would agree that IP should be abolished. But this is not a position I have seen classical market liberals and other free market advocates take. Instead, they tend to favor strengthening all forms of property rights. If I am wrong on this point, I'd be happy to read some examples.
    - Y_Y 2y ago
      I don't think we disagree, I would just like to add that this subtlety about "monopoly" depends on the (subjective) existence of substitute goods. Maybe as a consumer I just want any old book to read and so an individual author has no market control. On the other hand you can imagine, say, a technology that's practically or actually unavoidable as an input for a particular business (suppose HDMI had no viable alternative), then the IP holder could extract super-normal profit and make the economy less efficient.
hulitu 2y ago
> One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Microsoft ? RIAA ? MPAA ? Google (AI, books)

obirunda 2y ago

Monopolies form easily? That's funny, you should try and start one, seems quite profitable. Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion. IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies without IP laws. IP laws are the ultimate king maker and exclusively exist to perpetuate profits of the IP owner. If your proposition of regulation is to disband the patent offices and repeal the copyright act, my sincere apologies.

Rodeoclash 2y ago
If only the free market was even more free, all our problems would be solved!
- atoav 2y ago
  The invisible hand of the free market will come and fix all the things! /s If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others. Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good.
  - obirunda 2y ago
    You're conflating several schools of thought. Utilitarianism, which appears to be your basis for defining ethical behavior, underlies this reasoning behind compulsory government action. This line of thinking is often repeated in election cycles and mindless online discussions, with mantras like "We justify doing something heinous because it serves 'American Interests'" or "We'll coercively tax one group and redistribute funds to another because they'll do something dubiously for the 'greater good'". However, Utilitarianism is not a foundational principle of libertarian ideology. In fact, libertarianism often refutes and rejects it as applied to governments. It doesn't prioritize egalitarianism or rely on public opinion when defining citizens' rights. The argument for a free market unencumbered by protectionist policies isn't about the greater good; rather, it's an argument for an ethical government grounded in first principles. The "greater good" argument tends to crumble under close examination and logical scrutiny. Its claims on reason collapse as soon as you scrutinize them more deeply. Notably, Utilitarianism has been the basis for nearly all modern-day dictatorships, which rely on a monopoly of violence to enforce the "greater good". It's possible to support free markets while still caring for others – this is called altruism. It's similar to utilitarianism but without coercion and fallacies.

account42 2y ago

Actually these monopolies are enforced by the state via IP laws. Without IP laws any upstart could reverse engineer the protocols and provide an implementation with less limitations. But of course free market enthusiasts like to ignore that part and only rant against the government when it protects consumers from companies.

rini17 2y ago
Yes, if there were no IP anyone could cheaply make a single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASIC to provide the alternative 4K-capable video hardware implementation. /s
- ozfive 2y ago
  Single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASICs aren't really required to achieve this. Although there is higher latency this can and has been done on FPGAs at a company I worked for which designed and built custom AVOD systems for private jets and helicopters.
- miki123211 2y ago
  Anyone? No, probably not. Some enterprising company in Shenzhen, who would sell the thing for $.25 a piece due to fierce competition driving prices down to cost of materials? Now that's more likely.
roenxi 2y ago
There are a huge number of free market types who are against IP laws and they're a big part of computing culture. Names like the FSF [0] spring to mind. A market can't expose a fraction of its potential if people are banned from competing because someone else got there first. The only reason the software world did so well was because the FSF managed that inspired hack of the copyright system known as the GPL that freed up the market, in fact. [0] https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/