[CLUE-Talk] Legal breaking of the MS monopoly WAS: Re: [CLUE-Tech] HP laptop

[Matthew Porter]

Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> 
> > I only ask because I must be missing something here - isn't this something
> > for the free market to settle? If you like Microsoft, buy and use Microsoft.
> > If you don't, use an alternative. Where is the M$ tax being paid if you are
> > buying from a Linux-friendly vendor, or if you are constructing your own
> > machine? 
> 

Ed Hill <ed at eh3.com> wrote:

> Doesn't sound like you're missing much.  If you believe that monopoly
> problems should be sorted out by the market, then don't ask the
> government to codify or enforce antitrust laws.  Ok, thats a consistent
> view.  It discounts plenty of trade law currently on the books, but its
> still a view to which you are entitled.
> 
> While I also have strong libertarian-leanings, I do think there are
> circumstances which the law (and government) should try to prevent.  And
> I think the situation with Microsoft warrants intervention.  In my
> opinion, Microsoft has gone too far in their efforts to force out
> competition and be the only option in many markets.  As the trial
> demonstrated, they clearly broke existing antitrust laws.  And I don't
> think the situation (eg. your mention of broadband/ISPs) is getting any
> better under market forces alone.
> 

Here are some of my thought on this topic:

I agree with  Sean, that the free market should decide issues such as the
fate of Microsoft and its operating systems.  But I also agree with Ed,
that there is a place for antitrust laws.

Why?  Because Microsoft does not operate in a free market.  Nor does any
corporation.  And that goes double for a corporation that relies upon
intellectual property laws.

As a libertarian, I believe that government interference in free markets
should be minimized or eliminated.  However, the laws creating the legal
fiction of the "corporation," as well as copyright laws and other
intellectual property laws, ARE THEMSELVES governmental interference in
the free market.  Therefore, if an enterprise is going to benefit from
these laws, they should not claim "Free Market!  Free Market!" when held
to account under other laws -- such as antitrust -- which seek to control
potential abuse of corporate power and government-granted intellectual
property rights.

Can't have it both ways.  It doesn't seem reasonable to accept government
interference in the form of corporation laws and copyright laws, and decry
government action to regulate the behavior of corporations and the use of
IP.



--Matt.

----------
Matthew Porter
Golden, Colorado

mfporter at c-creature.com