It’s amazing to me how many people do not think that they are monopolies, because they are! It is called “patents”.
Protectionism? I wouldn’t be surprised. Btw, source?
Yeah. People slam Microsoft for being a monopoly, but they fail to realize that patents are one reason, and probably the biggest reason, why they maintain such a huge market share.
Ah, I see your point. That’s not something I thought about, patent and copyright being an area I’m weak on. However, I’m learning more and more about this aspect and how harmful it is. While I still wouldn’t call them a “monopoly” necessarily, I can see where patent law has given them an unfair edge in the marketplace.
Thanks for the post,
Dave
Can anyone else legally produce and market Microsoft Windows or any Microsoft product? If not, then they have a monopoly.
“Can anyone else legally produce and market Microsoft Windows or any Microsoft product? If not, then they have a monopoly.”
Well, I must not understand monopolies then, I’ll have to go to some additional research. I thought you were considered a monopoly if you kept anyone from entering the marketplace, and Microsoft isn’t doing that. You can create your own OS and sell it and market it, right?
I also think I understand the point that the current patent system is flawed, in that those people who do try to create an OS might have a hard time of it because if they use anything that even comes close to resembling anything Microsoft does they might get sued by Microsoft. Thus innovation and the freedom to develop a new OS is hampered.
Are you saying that when a software company creates something then other people should be allowed to claim it as their product and sell it under a different brand name, even though you didn’t do any work or research on creating the product?
I still have a lot to learn in terms of Austrian economics, so forgive me if I’m incorrect with some of my points here.
Dave
Here is another problem with antitrust laws. How do define Microsoft’s monopoly? Do they hold a monopoly over the Windows; or over the operating system market? They have a state-granted monopoly (redundant, but I’m trying this as clear as possible) over Windows. Microsoft can stop you from using your own property to make a Windows. However, Microsoft does not have a state-granted monopoly over the operating system market.
Remember the three definitions for monopoly:
- A state-granted, exclusive right to a market.
- 100% market share of a market
- Monopoly-like control over a market.
The first definition is the correct one. The second and third definitions are the ones used against so-called monopolies.
It’s ironic that antritrust does not attack state-granted monopolies, which are the true monopolies, but does attack the non-monopolies.
Yup.
Please be more careful with your usage of language. We should strive to be as clear and precise as possible. With that said, if I invent the cotton gin, you do not have claim over the actual and physical cotton gin I made. In other words, I retain ownership over the cotton gin I physically made. Thus, you should be a able to make a cotton gin with your owns resources. You have the right to use the wood and metal you own to create a cotton gin. I have no right to prevent you from using your resources to make a cotton gin.
And just because you have a monopoly on a power plant, does not mean someone else cannot build a gas plant. Or, just because you have a monopoly on bananas, does not mean someone else cannot produce oranges. In other words, a banana monopoly is not a monopoly on the fruit market, just like Microsoft’s monopoly on the Microsoft Windows market is not a monopoly on the OS market.
No, I am saying someone should be able to freely copy the product and sell it. They should be able to claim that they invented it if they like, but it would be pretty easy to show which product came out first, and then they would become known as liars and probably would not last long in the marketplace.
I forget that I used to be at that point only a few years earlier. There is a lot to discover and this is a great resource. I would check out FEE.org as well if I were you. That and Mises.org seem to be the best ones I have found so far.
I think it’s more complicated than that. You are perfectly free to create Spidey’s OS or Spidey’s Spreadsheet, but you can’t call it “Microsoft.” That would be a fraud. And Microsoft is perfectly free to lock down all their codes and tricks of the trade contractually, e.g., by making its customers/vendors/etc. represent that as a condition of doing biz with Microsoft, they won’t hack the code, reverse-engineer, distribute to users who haven’t expressly agreed to this, etc. Right so far?
I think Microsoft wields market power, but I’m not sure they’re a government-enforced monopoly.
Ok, that makes sense, I see the point you’re making, and I agree completely. [:)]
Sure, you can make your own spreadsheet software; as long as the code isn’t the same as Microsoft’s, however. Thus, Microsoft can prevent you from using your own computer and your labor do produce a spreadsheet software who’s code is identical to Microsoft’s.
Gotcha, now I understand what you meant. I hope you don’t mind a few more questions on this subject though, because this strikes close to home a bit for me. I have some ideas for iPhone games that I’m working on, that haven’t been done yet. What I mean by “haven’t been done yet” is that they’re original ideas. The problem I have with what you’re saying here is that, at least in regards to iPhone games, it’s very easy for someone else to purchase your game off iTunes, then reverse engineer it, basically take all the work you spent weeks/months on, maybe change it just a little bit, and then sell it at the iTunes store under their own name or company name and profit from it.
Hmmm…I just see the flaw in my logic actually, after typing this, and I see your point even more clearly.
What I was going to continue saying is that it would be far too easy for people do copy your work and sell it on iTunes, but it actually isn’t that easy now that I think about it. Because it will be too easy for ME to show that my product was out there first. Also, it doesn’t really matter if I can or can’t show that my work was out there first. If they do copy the idea of my game and make it better, and consumers enjoy it more than my game, then that’s a good thing. Maybe not good for me necessarily, but that’s what will keep me working hard to provide better and better products to consumers.
I’ve been a follower of the mises.org site for a long time, but never have checked out Fee.org. Thanks much for that recommendation! Looks like a great site.
Regards,
Dave
I agree with Byzantine. I don’t think Obama is anything special, i nfavt he is awful in some ways (beyond his retarded economics.)
Exactly- I agree entirely. Though if someone did leak it to a third party, whom reverse engineered it and released their own copy, there would be absolutely nothing Microsoft could do (aside from impose really harsh contract penalties on the leaker and anyone whom used it that had a DRO who disapproved (see below)). I think this would be a large deterent, but I dont think it solves the problem entirely. But it is controversial (even in anarchic circles) if ‘solving the problem’ is even a good idea.
Intellectual property is an incredibly complicated question because it is based on property rights (which are already complicated enough!). I think the best solution that I have thought of is that each individual DRO (or voluntary government as I like to call them) which you have contracted with would have different rules regarding Intellectual Property (IP). If you belonged to a particular voluntary government which enforced IP rights to an original vendors standards, the original vendor would sell to you, if you did not, well, you would have to wait until the hacked version/fake product was released by a competitor. This gives the original creator a relative edge against any would be IP pirate, but does not halt the production of copy righted goods all together.
Clearly, the company could also purposefully include priate safety functions in the product which, if the product was tampered with, destroyed any key data which would allow it to be copied easily. I am positive the market would figure out ways to work around it if the power of the gun was not granted by the state.
Another solution would be for the company to release viral versions of the software for free for the scare tactic effect on those who want to ‘download it for free’. I’m sure there are a limitless other ways companies would think of that are perfectly valid within the NAP to protect their operating code.
I do realize that this doesn’t address IP fully on design, mechanical components, technology, new drugs, new materials, etc, etc, etc. For things that may require massive amounts of research (ie, rearden metal anyone?), I believe the DRO resolution will suffice. I hate to use a bit of a collectivist argument here, but in order for them to even know about the materials they are working with, they have learned it from prior knowledge of other individuals who discovered/developed a material. It is unreasonable to require anyone and everyone to pay tribute for one mans discovery for an indefinite or arbitrary period of time simply because it could have been developed by another person. Profit would be rendered impossible, as we would need to pay every scientist, engineer, or wanderer who discovered anything the amount they wanted.
My own personal stance on the issue is, if I am going to be making more profit from the software than the cost of the software, I’ll buy it. If I will be using it to do non monetary profit things (such as video editing for youtube), I’ll just have a friend lend it to me.. forever 
I wouldn’t purchase it if it costed me something, so I don’t see it taking away from anyones profit anywho.
No, it is incredibly simple. Ideas are not property in that they are not scarce. We have several threads complete with idiotic flamewars I am ashamed to have participated in that I can provide for background.
But IP is not property, and property rights are not complicated. Where ever there will be conflict, the resolution might not be clear to all parties, but in a free society conflict resolution will play a more minor role to voluntary compliance because there will not be a monopoly state apparatus devoted to the violation and compromise of property rights. In other words, the cost of violating someone else’s property or claiming a “right” to someone else’s property due to conflict will come at a direct cost to the instigator. This along will be a major incentive for people to stitch their name on their underwear and not to leave their property lying around in their driveway after dark.
Exactly!
However, it is important for you to show that your product was first, because it will give you a leading edge in the industry. People will see that you are more innovative, and look to you first for innovation. Whether it be you or your company or the company you work for that is innovative. You will become the leader, and people tend to follow the leader and you will make more money than your competition, if your competition is not innovative and lags behind.
Or, he’s the tool of other people who are well rehearsed in what to do to get elected.
Believing there is such a thing as “intellectual property” is akin to believing in Santa Claus. Answer one simple question, how do you steal intellectual property? And you cannot say that it was copied, because stealing and copying are not synonyms.
i agree, but i would emphasise that ideas arent rivalrous, whereas material goods are. it is because material goods are scarce that we realise that they are rival, and this causes us to formulate theories of legitimate ownership so as to avoid conflict over scarce-rival goods. I saw someone pro-IP write long tracts about scarcity, and claiming that ideas can be scarce, he never even addressed whether they are rival or non-rival. he could have saved himself some pages by just recognising that idea’s are non-rival and so not candidates for being property.
Could you clarify on this? Ideas are not scarce once they are public, so I do not see how he could even write pages about it. Once an idea is out in the open, everyone has access to it.
Spidey,
I qoute from the guy to explain what motivated my emphasis on rivalry