4 ms·

Question: I think if you disagree with (software) patents, you must also disagree with these anti-monopoly laws. Everyone must be equal and free to compete, eve

Question: I think if you disagree with (software) patents, you must also disagree with these anti-monopoly laws. Everyone must be equal and free to compete, even companies with trillions of dollars in bank. It's 3 AM here so I can't make a good case why I feel that way (so I rather not to, in case I'm misunderstood and people waste their time arguing about what I don't mean), but I want to know what others think about it. Most people hate IE and to a degree, MS. But it shouldn't matter whether we like them or not. They must be allowed to do whatever they want even if it hurts the industry.

squidsoup 14y ago
"They must be allowed to do whatever they want even if it hurts the industry." Isn't this the kind of thinking that led to the banking crisis?
SEMW 14y ago
> I think if you disagree with (software) patents, you must also disagree with these anti-monopoly laws. ...Do you have a reason for thinking that? The connection isn't obvious. If your reason for disagreeing with software patents is an aversion to government intervention then, ok, sure, that reason would also extend to disliking competition law. But if your reason for disagreeing with software patents is, say, because you don't like that they grant the patent-holder a monopoly on the subject of the patent and you don't like monopolies, that's pretty compatible with having a high regard for competition law. And if your reason for disagree with software patents is something else entirely, that might not point to any particular position on competition law at all.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  To be honest I can't understand your comment right now (I'm tooo sleepy - it's 5:35 AM!), so I can't comment on that. But the gist of what I was getting at was this: is government intervention in a free market "a good thing"? Even if it is to (temporarily?) protect us from the evil of Big Co.?
cageface 14y ago
Like most legal issues I don't think this one is so black & white. I'm still not sure if government intervention was the right answer in Microsoft's case but the fact that some kind of government involvement (patents) is clearly bad for the software industry doesn't necessarily mean that any government involvement is bad.

squidsoup 14y ago

"They must be allowed to do whatever they want even if it hurts the industry." Isn't this the kind of thinking that led to the banking crisis?

SEMW 14y ago

> I think if you disagree with (software) patents, you must also disagree with these anti-monopoly laws. ...Do you have a reason for thinking that? The connection isn't obvious. If your reason for disagreeing with software patents is an aversion to government intervention then, ok, sure, that reason would also extend to disliking competition law. But if your reason for disagreeing with software patents is, say, because you don't like that they grant the patent-holder a monopoly on the subject of the patent and you don't like monopolies, that's pretty compatible with having a high regard for competition law. And if your reason for disagree with software patents is something else entirely, that might not point to any particular position on competition law at all.

pooriaazimi 14y ago
To be honest I can't understand your comment right now (I'm tooo sleepy - it's 5:35 AM!), so I can't comment on that. But the gist of what I was getting at was this: is government intervention in a free market "a good thing"? Even if it is to (temporarily?) protect us from the evil of Big Co.?

cageface 14y ago

Like most legal issues I don't think this one is so black & white. I'm still not sure if government intervention was the right answer in Microsoft's case but the fact that some kind of government involvement (patents) is clearly bad for the software industry doesn't necessarily mean that any government involvement is bad.