Re: Economics and the GPL

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

> > you're confusing different issues.  GPL has been around way before M$ 
> > was a monopoly, so using it as an anti-monopoly response isn't right.  

Actually, I think it could be argued that Microsoft already had a monopoly 
in PC operating systems, even if it wasn't recognized yet.  I don't think 
the GPL's creation had anything to do with Microsoft specifically though.

> On the contrary, GPL is a primarily an anti-monopoly tool:  the monopoly 
> of copyright.  Anyone who holds a copyright (or patent) holds a legal 
> monopoly on that product.  See Jefferson's letters to Madison:  he 
> opposed unlimited copyright because copyright was a type of monopoly, and 
> unlimited copyright an unlimited monopoly.  And that monopoly power can 
> be used to create larger monopolies, just as Microsoft used their 
> monopoly on Windows to create a monopoly on consumer operating systems.

And yet, the GPL uses this legal monopoly of copyright to hoard all GPL 
software for the exclusive proprietary benefit of the GPL community, while 
ranting about the evils of proprietary software hoarders.  Is this the pot 
calling the kettle black?

> > Besides,  anti-trust laws are for anticompetitive behavior - it is not an 
> > anti-monopoly remedy.
> 
> True, but tactics that are considered "anticompetitive" for a monopoly would
> not be considered "anticompetitive" for others.

I think it's a matter of effect.  Any company can exhibit anticompetitive 
behavior.  Indeed, it's encouraged by the capitalistic system.  However, 
it's only when one competitor reaches a dominant monopoly status that their 
natural anticompetitive behavior is likely to lead to real anticompetitive 
EFFECTS that are significant enough to damage the free market.

I think that's the real reason for antitrust laws and expecting monopolists 
to act more responsibly and refrain from anticompetitive behavior, because 
that behavior quickly leads to damaging anticompetitive effects.

> > Why favor ANYONE by changing the rules (assuming the rules are fair)?  
> 
> To assure that there is real competition, where an underdog has a reasonable
> chance of defeating a current champion.

It's not about fairness.  It's about the public interest.  Vital, active 
competition is in the public interest, because the free market serves the 
interests of the customer when competition is vibrant.  Monopolistic abuses 
of power are not in the public interest, because a monopolist can squeeze 
the customer dry -- they're the only game in town.  Antitrust laws exist to 
make the marketplace fair to the CUSTOMER (the public), not the vendor...

> > the golf/bowler analogy isn't appropriate.  You make handicaps because 
> > there would be no point of the competition if you didn't.  
> 
> I think the analogy fits perfectly.  We limit the actions of monopolies 
> for the same reason we give handicaps in sports:  in order to assure 
> there is a true competition, one where the outcome is not a foregone 
> conclusion.

This makes sense, although it doesn't really address the public interest.

> > A good general rule for "fairness" is that you treat people equally.  
> [...]
> >How can you be fair by discriminating?  

Because laws are (theoretically) made for the benefit of everyone -- in the 
public interest.  This means that things that may seem unfair with respect 
to private interests (e.g. antitrust law, eventual expiration of copyright, 
etc.) exist for the benefit of the public, to keep private interests from 
exploiting the public mercilessly.

Of course, nowadays it's common for laws to be enacted to advance private 
interests (e.g. DMCA, CTEA) but that's a distortion of the legal system...

Deven