3 ms·

When does market competitors collaborating on FOSS become anti-competitive, collusion, etc.? If Apple and Google collaborated on a FOSS smartphone OS that both

by mmooss 2y ago

When does market competitors collaborating on FOSS become anti-competitive, collusion, etc.? If Apple and Google collaborated on a FOSS smartphone OS that both used, that would seem obviously illegal. What if the collaborated on the kernel only? What about the screen UI only? In a way that seems worse, but engineering-wise it's less significant than the kernel. A security subsystem? Some drivers? Keyboards? I'm not sure how that applies to these automakers. While none of Apple's or Google's market power, as far as I know, and while an OS is less significant to a car than it is to a smartphone, possibly, I'd be surprised if they all can ship cars with the same OS. Where and how is the line drawn?

lvturner 2y ago
Would it? Especially as it's FOSS - rising ship raises all tides and all that. If it was behind closed doors, then yes. (Usual IANAL a lawyer disclaimer, and I don't mean my comment to shoot yours down - think there is merit in further discussion here!)
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Especially as it's FOSS - rising ship raises all tides and all that. That's anti-competitive, at least in many ways. I doubt Ford could freely give GM some highly profitable technology to help GM's profits; Ford should maximize its advantage. OTOH, there are industry standards - but those could be defined by performance or they could possibly be for (non-competitive?) aspects like safety.
  - nhinck2 2y ago
    It's anti-anti-competitive, they aren't only giving it to GM. Similarly Volvo giving away seat belt designs was not anti-competitive and neither would this.
  - lvturner 2y ago
    Given the results are given to all and open to changes from all - I'm not sure how this is anti-competitive? Do you mean a scenario where-by it's tuned to run on only hardware that is controlled by the vested parties, effectively locking out other players on the hardware level, while strengthening the desirability of said hardware by leveraging a greater number of software engineers under a somewhat false premise?
mistercheph 2y ago
Competitors collaboratively building industry standard tools in the open and sharing them freely with all marketplace participants new or existing is the opposite of anti competitive collusion where established market players collaborate to prevent new market entrants.
nickserv 2y ago
If it would allow other manufacturers to use the software in their own vehicles, meaning truly open source, it's the opposite of anticompetitive behavior. I could see some of the newer, much smaller electric vehicle manufacturers taking advantage of the software.
Hilift 2y ago
I think both Microsoft and Redhat can contribute to Linux kernel without it becoming an issue of unfair competition.
jeffwass 2y ago
> If Apple and Google collaborated on a FOSS smartphone OS that both used, that would seem obviously illegal. Not sure why this would be “obviously” illegal. For example - Intel, IBM, Compaq, Microsoft and others collaborated to design the USB port standard. It’s an open standard, any of their competitors is free to use it.
- unwind 2y ago
  Well, kinda, there are still fees for things like the right to use the various USB logos and of course to allocate a vendor ID [1] ($3,500 for two years, and $6,000 respectively). [1]: https://www.usb.org/getting-vendor-id https://www.usb.org/getting-vendor-id
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
froh 2y ago
the problem never is doing things together. the problem always is hampering markets, hampering others. How do you envision to hamper third parties with FOSS? and do you mean FOSS, as in copyleft? or OSS as in OSI compliant? With either, how do you think you can block third parties?
- mmooss 2y ago
  > the problem never is doing things together. the problem always is hampering markets, hampering others. As far as I know, market participants, especially large ones, must compete; they can't choose not to compete. Otherwise they hurt consumers and economic growth, and can create a barrier for new market entrants.
  - froh 2y ago
    help me understand how technical cooperation hurts customers and economic growth, exactly? I don't see it. to the contrary. reality (e.g. Linux, android) also indicates competition, cooperation of competitors, is helping customers and grows economy.

by mmooss 2y ago

lvturner 2y ago

Would it? Especially as it's FOSS - rising ship raises all tides and all that. If it was behind closed doors, then yes. (Usual IANAL a lawyer disclaimer, and I don't mean my comment to shoot yours down - think there is merit in further discussion here!)

mmooss 2y ago
> Especially as it's FOSS - rising ship raises all tides and all that. That's anti-competitive, at least in many ways. I doubt Ford could freely give GM some highly profitable technology to help GM's profits; Ford should maximize its advantage. OTOH, there are industry standards - but those could be defined by performance or they could possibly be for (non-competitive?) aspects like safety.
- nhinck2 2y ago
  It's anti-anti-competitive, they aren't only giving it to GM. Similarly Volvo giving away seat belt designs was not anti-competitive and neither would this.
- lvturner 2y ago
  Given the results are given to all and open to changes from all - I'm not sure how this is anti-competitive? Do you mean a scenario where-by it's tuned to run on only hardware that is controlled by the vested parties, effectively locking out other players on the hardware level, while strengthening the desirability of said hardware by leveraging a greater number of software engineers under a somewhat false premise?

mistercheph 2y ago

Competitors collaboratively building industry standard tools in the open and sharing them freely with all marketplace participants new or existing is the opposite of anti competitive collusion where established market players collaborate to prevent new market entrants.

nickserv 2y ago

If it would allow other manufacturers to use the software in their own vehicles, meaning truly open source, it's the opposite of anticompetitive behavior. I could see some of the newer, much smaller electric vehicle manufacturers taking advantage of the software.

Hilift 2y ago

I think both Microsoft and Redhat can contribute to Linux kernel without it becoming an issue of unfair competition.

jeffwass 2y ago

> If Apple and Google collaborated on a FOSS smartphone OS that both used, that would seem obviously illegal. Not sure why this would be “obviously” illegal. For example - Intel, IBM, Compaq, Microsoft and others collaborated to design the USB port standard. It’s an open standard, any of their competitors is free to use it.

unwind 2y ago
Well, kinda, there are still fees for things like the right to use the various USB logos and of course to allocate a vendor ID [1] ($3,500 for two years, and $6,000 respectively). [1]: https://www.usb.org/getting-vendor-id https://www.usb.org/getting-vendor-id

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

froh 2y ago

the problem never is doing things together. the problem always is hampering markets, hampering others. How do you envision to hamper third parties with FOSS? and do you mean FOSS, as in copyleft? or OSS as in OSI compliant? With either, how do you think you can block third parties?

mmooss 2y ago
> the problem never is doing things together. the problem always is hampering markets, hampering others. As far as I know, market participants, especially large ones, must compete; they can't choose not to compete. Otherwise they hurt consumers and economic growth, and can create a barrier for new market entrants.
- froh 2y ago
  help me understand how technical cooperation hurts customers and economic growth, exactly? I don't see it. to the contrary. reality (e.g. Linux, android) also indicates competition, cooperation of competitors, is helping customers and grows economy.