4 ms·

An entire country (Estonia) recently bought a Mathematica site license.. I don't see that as evidence of monopoly erosion. Look, Sage is great, I hope Sage doe

An entire country (Estonia) recently bought a Mathematica site license.. I don't see that as evidence of monopoly erosion. Look, Sage is great, I hope Sage does really well and eventually duplicates the entirety of our functionality. But at the current rate it'll take probably hundreds of years. Sometimes, profit-subsidized research is just much, much more productive at driving innovation.

ethomson 13y ago
This seems like an odd comparison since one doesn't really buy Sage licenses. This just suggests that Conrad is good at Business Development.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > This seems like an odd comparison since one doesn't really buy Sage licenses. True in a deep sense. In principle one could collect all the open-source components that make up Sage and recreate it independently. Sage resembles gluons more than it resembles protons and neutrons -- it holds together things created by others.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lutusp 13y ago
> I don't see that as evidence of monopoly erosion. If I were you, I would want to avoid describing Wolfram's present circumstances as a monopoly. The word has certain legal implications one would do well to avoid.
- gfodor 13y ago
  monopolies aren't illegal.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Depending on how one gets in that position, Of course they are. http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-illegal-monopoly http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-illegal-monopoly
    - gfodor 13y ago
      no. that web page is terrible. a company having a monopoly is just a state-of-affairs that be used as a justification for prosecuting certain actions that company takes. having a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly in the PC operating system market, not of having a monopoly in the PC operating system market which was all but self-evident at the time and not a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > a company having a monopoly is just a state-of-affairs ... The legal issues turn on how the monopoly was acquired, not its mere existence. In any case, my original point was that it's unwise to describe one's company's position as a monopoly -- it sounds predatory, and it can only attract the attention of corporate lawyers.

ethomson 13y ago

This seems like an odd comparison since one doesn't really buy Sage licenses. This just suggests that Conrad is good at Business Development.

lutusp 13y ago
> This seems like an odd comparison since one doesn't really buy Sage licenses. True in a deep sense. In principle one could collect all the open-source components that make up Sage and recreate it independently. Sage resembles gluons more than it resembles protons and neutrons -- it holds together things created by others.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lutusp 13y ago

> I don't see that as evidence of monopoly erosion. If I were you, I would want to avoid describing Wolfram's present circumstances as a monopoly. The word has certain legal implications one would do well to avoid.

gfodor 13y ago
monopolies aren't illegal.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Depending on how one gets in that position, Of course they are. http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-illegal-monopoly http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-illegal-monopoly
  - gfodor 13y ago
    no. that web page is terrible. a company having a monopoly is just a state-of-affairs that be used as a justification for prosecuting certain actions that company takes. having a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly in the PC operating system market, not of having a monopoly in the PC operating system market which was all but self-evident at the time and not a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > a company having a monopoly is just a state-of-affairs ... The legal issues turn on how the monopoly was acquired, not its mere existence. In any case, my original point was that it's unwise to describe one's company's position as a monopoly -- it sounds predatory, and it can only attract the attention of corporate lawyers.