Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Monopoly's and Regulations

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 12:21:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 12:20:25 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Should we allow monopoly's to form?

should we remove regulations ?
For businesses
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What are these monopolies you'd allow or prohibit?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
What are these monopolies you'd allow or prohibit?

Businesses that basicly shut down any and all competition;
Anti-competitive practices

These can include:
Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss. Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.

Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.

Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.

Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor

Dividing territories, an agreement by two companies to stay out of each other's way and reduce competition in the agreed-upon territories.

Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.

Tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be purchased together.

Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.

Also criticized are:
Absorption of a competitor or competing technology, where the powerful firm effectively co-opts or swallows its competitor rather than see it either compete directly or be absorbed by another firm.

Subsidies from government which allow a firm to function without being profitable, giving them an advantage over competition or effectively barring competition

Regulations which place costly restrictions on firms that less wealthy firms cannot afford to implement

Protectionism, Tariffs and Quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces

Patent misuse and copyright misuse, such as fraudulently obtaining a patent, copyright, or other form of intellectual property; or using such legal devices to gain advantage in an unrelated market.

Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Solomon_Kane
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:03:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Monopolies are antithetical to capitalism. They at once reduce and undermine it, which is why we see phenomena like Microsoft being intercepted and broken via governmental intervention, as they begin to appear.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:27:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 1:37:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
What are these monopolies you'd allow or prohibit?

Businesses that basicly shut down any and all competition;
Anti-competitive practices

These can include:
Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss. Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.
The physical capital of the other business survives, and is sold to a holding company until this moronic "monopoly" bankrupts itself. Meanwhile customer wins.

Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
That's not a "monopoly" unless the retailer is.


Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
No, not effectively. Effectively what happens is that the first company to break the rules wins, whether in the cartel or a new competitor.


Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
Third company wins.


Dividing territories, an agreement by two companies to stay out of each other's way and reduce competition in the agreed-upon territories.
Third company wins.


Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
Customer wins.


Tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be purchased together.
Second company wins.

Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
Second company wins.

Absorption of a competitor or competing technology, where the powerful firm effectively co-opts or swallows its competitor rather than see it either compete directly or be absorbed by another firm.
Motivates people to make another company just like it, and so on and so forth, until the powerful firm goes bankrupt buying these out.


Subsidies from government which allow a firm to function without being profitable, giving them an advantage over competition or effectively barring competition
That is indeed bad, but you don't need regulations to stop it. In fact, it is a regulation.


Regulations which place costly restrictions on firms that less wealthy firms cannot afford to implement
See above.


Protectionism, Tariffs and Quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces
See above.

Patent misuse and copyright misuse, such as fraudulently obtaining a patent, copyright, or other form of intellectual property; or using such legal devices to gain advantage in an unrelated market.
Unrelated market advantage seems implausible by definition. Misuse is presumably handled by the same entities that recognize the device in the first place.


Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.
That's just a contract between consumer and producer, if you don't like it don't buy it. I've heard of criticizing DRM for causing other, technical problems, but that in and of itself doesn't seem to be a problem.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:31:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Monopolies never last long in a free-market, because competitors will be able to enter without state obstruction.

Some monopolies are preferable though, such as natural monopolies: electric lines, telephone lines, water pipes, etc. Imagine what would happen if there were many electric companies trying to establish thirty different systems all at once.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Argument against monopolies

Premise 1: Monopolies are always bad.

Premise 2: We should stop things that are bad.

Conclusion 1: In order to stop monopolies from forming, we should employ the use of a monopoly on force and law to restrict corporation's ability to form monopolies.
My manwich!
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:04:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:37:30 PM, Merda wrote:
Argument against monopolies

Premise 1: Monopolies are always bad.

Premise 2: We should stop things that are bad.

Conclusion 1: In order to stop monopolies from forming, we should employ the use of a monopoly on force and law to restrict corporation's ability to form monopolies.

Let us forbid all monopolies except the monopoly which is necessary for them all. By using that same monopoly <facepalm>.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:26:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 1:37:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
What are these monopolies you'd allow or prohibit?

Businesses that basicly shut down any and all competition;
I dare claim that such a business cannot permanently exist, and be harmful at the same time.

Anti-competitive practices

These can include:
Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
A company sells at a loss? You mean where they make presents and give you something for nothing at their own expense? When did charity become monopolistic?
Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.
Yeah, and what will that do? Correct: draw competitors back in the market.

This "low-price" monopoly can only exist as long as it's charitable in nature. Yay monopoly!

Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
Obliged how? By contract? Why would they accept such a contract, unless it were for their own benefit? What's so evil about contracts?

Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
In Alphabettown, there are three bakers: A, B, and C. A decides in his infite wisdom that he will raise his prices. Result: B and C profit from getting more customers, while A goes out of business.
Because he is not stupid, A does not do this. He decides instead to make a deal with B. A and B raise their prices together. Again, C profits, while evil monopolists A and B goes out of business.
But now, oh, now A has a genius idea. A, B, and C will ALL raise their prices! Surely this time those consumers will just have to accept the higher prices! The evil monopolists sit together, congratulating themselves for their great idea. Meanwhile, townsperson D do a little math and finds out that he can actually make bread and charge a lot less then the evil monopolists do. D becomes a baker. The evil monopolists go out of business.

Oh, sure, D now has a monopoly on bread in Alphabettown. But only as long as he doesn't raise his prices beyond where E can compete and put him out of business. In other words: the monopoly only exists as long as it isn't harmful. (And there's no reason why the people of Alphabettown should prefer only one baker, so E might just be able to peacefully coexist with D, not to mention that A, B, and C might alo want to try their luck again after having learned their lesson. The only reason why the people of Alphabettown would prefer having only one instead of all of them would be if one of them made much better bread, or were able to make it much cheaper. So the monopoly, if it exists, may actually be very beneficial!)

Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
And...?

Dividing territories, an agreement by two companies to stay out of each other's way and reduce competition in the agreed-upon territories.
Because there are only, and can only ever be, two companies in any given market.

Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
Meaning.... Very low? How is that harmful?

Tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be purchased together.
You mean like when D and E give you chocolate coins with their buns? You're free to buy buns from A, B, or C. They will most certainly find it profitable to make buns if there is a demand for buns without chocolate coins but D and E refuse to sell them.

Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
Which is monopolistic how?

Also criticized are:
Absorption of a competitor or competing technology, where the powerful firm effectively co-opts or swallows its competitor rather than see it either compete directly or be absorbed by another firm.
And it can only do that if it is a better company.

Subsidies from government which allow a firm to function without being profitable, giving them an advantage over competition or effectively barring competition
Yes, that is in fact the harmful one.

Regulations which place costly restrictions on firms that less wealthy firms cannot afford to implement
Correct.

Protectionism, Tariffs and Quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces
Correct

Patent misuse and copyright misuse, such as fraudulently obtaining a patent, copyright, or other form of intellectual property; or using such legal devices to gain advantage in an unrelated market.
I guess I'd agree there, at least as far as you've spelled it out.

Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.
Aaand this one I completely disagree on. It's their product, why could they not set conditions for you to use it? This is just a contract. But I feel we're getting off the topic of monopolies. As far as monopolies go: if there's demand for media that's usable, and it's profitable to make it, there will be competition.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:28:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 10:26:42 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/30/2011 1:37:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:

Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.
Aaand this one I completely disagree on. It's their product, why could they not set conditions for you to use it? This is just a contract. But I feel we're getting off the topic of monopolies. As far as monopolies go: if there's demand for media that's usable, and it's profitable to make it, there will be competition.

Ah, but DRM applies not only to those purchasing it, but third parties who aren't privy to the contract too. They never agreed not to resell the purchase, since they didn't buy it to begin with. A contract theory of intellectual property does not hold up. Who is going to sign contracts that don't give them full ownership after buying a product? Without state intervention, DRM would be impossible, not to mention patent and copyright in general.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 5:48:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 6:28:24 PM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:26:42 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/30/2011 1:37:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:

Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.
Aaand this one I completely disagree on. It's their product, why could they not set conditions for you to use it? This is just a contract. But I feel we're getting off the topic of monopolies. As far as monopolies go: if there's demand for media that's usable, and it's profitable to make it, there will be competition.

Ah, but DRM applies not only to those purchasing it, but third parties who aren't privy to the contract too. They never agreed not to resell the purchase, since they didn't buy it to begin with. A contract theory of intellectual property does not hold up. Who is going to sign contracts that don't give them full ownership after buying a product? Without state intervention, DRM would be impossible, not to mention patent and copyright in general.
Please do tell me what the hell kind of third party is (legitimately) in possession of media, yet is not "privy to the contract".
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 6:47:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 5:48:55 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/1/2011 6:28:24 PM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:26:42 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 5/30/2011 1:37:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 5/30/2011 12:32:33 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:

Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.
Aaand this one I completely disagree on. It's their product, why could they not set conditions for you to use it? This is just a contract. But I feel we're getting off the topic of monopolies. As far as monopolies go: if there's demand for media that's usable, and it's profitable to make it, there will be competition.

Ah, but DRM applies not only to those purchasing it, but third parties who aren't privy to the contract too. They never agreed not to resell the purchase, since they didn't buy it to begin with. A contract theory of intellectual property does not hold up. Who is going to sign contracts that don't give them full ownership after buying a product? Without state intervention, DRM would be impossible, not to mention patent and copyright in general.
Please do tell me what the hell kind of third party is (legitimately) in possession of media, yet is not "privy to the contract".

If Party A sells media to Party B with the stipulation they not copy or resell this, it's fine. Party C, though, is not party to the contract and cannot be held responsible if Party B violates this, giving or selling them a copy. Party A only has a claim against Party B. So in answer to your question-"any" third party can be in possession of media yet is not privy to the contract. In fact, this is the very definition of third party in contracts. Whether legitimate or not, they had no agreement with A, only B.They are the responsible party. At most C might have to give back whatever copy they bought from B.

This is pretty standard contract stuff. If automatic copyright were not given, it seems highly unlikely people would settle for less than full ownership, as I said above. First sale doctrine has been excluded from most digital media unlike other types by default, rather than in terms of an imaginary contract. We do not live in a world that leaves it up to buyer and seller. Copyright and patent are creations of the state. As an anarchist, I view them as illegitimate regardless.

https://secure.wikimedia.org...
https://secure.wikimedia.org...
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 7:31:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So let me get this straight... A has no right to sell to B a product that can only be used by B, but not by C?

I think we're talking about two diferent things here (and yes, i did kind of mix them up together).

One thing is the contract between A and B. A has every right to give any condition he wants (as does B; and if they can't agree, there will be no contract). A can absolutely sell media under the condition that it not be resold or copied, or whatever else A wants. This includes the condition that IF B gives the product to C, C will have to follow the same conditions. So, yes, C is privy to that contract if A says so in his original contract.

The second issue is the product itself. DRM as in: the product itself is made in such a way that it can ONLY be used by B effectively. I cannot see any reason AT ALL why this should be illegitimate.

Which are you railing against, and what's the "illegitimacy" you see?

Oh also, this is all a little off topic.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 7:49:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 7:31:40 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
So let me get this straight... A has no right to sell to B a product that can only be used by B, but not by C?

I think we're talking about two diferent things here (and yes, i did kind of mix them up together).

One thing is the contract between A and B. A has every right to give any condition he wants (as does B; and if they can't agree, there will be no contract). A can absolutely sell media under the condition that it not be resold or copied, or whatever else A wants. This includes the condition that IF B gives the product to C, C will have to follow the same conditions. So, yes, C is privy to that contract if A says so in his original contract.

A and B may sign a contract to that effect yes, but in no case has C signed it. How can they be bound to a contract they never signed? A is the only one breaching it. C did not agree to follow these conditions.

The second issue is the product itself. DRM as in: the product itself is made in such a way that it can ONLY be used by B effectively. I cannot see any reason AT ALL why this should be illegitimate.

Yes, A can manufacture products this way. After buying it from B, though, C may then buy a debugger. B is again the only one breaching contract here.


Which are you railing against, and what's the "illegitimacy" you see?

I don't think I'm "railing" lol. Illegitimacy lies with third parties being put under the contract they never signed.

Oh also, this is all a little off topic.

I disagree. Copyright and patent are both monopoly regulations. The former arose with the printing press, when the state licensed all publishers to control dissenting opinion. Patent, on the hand, comes from the word "letters patent" meaning "open letter"-that is, a public royal decree, rather than "letters close", a private kind. The people favored by a sovereign were granted monopoly rights to any number of things by such "patents," such as trade rights, e.g. the East India Company. Before you say anything, yes, I do realize this is not the same as modern copyright and patent, but there is a similarity to its origin, unsurprisingly. Both give a monopoly over ideas.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 8:33:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
C has no more right to use the product in a way that violates B's initial contract than he would if B had stolen it, then sold it to him. He has still gotten access to it in an illegitimate way. "Intellectual property" serves to avoid such loopholes.

I do agree though, that patents and copyrights can be misused to gain an illegitimate monopolistic advantage; as can all other property titles.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 9:51:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 8:33:08 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
C has no more right to use the product in a way that violates B's initial contract than he would if B had stolen it, then sold it to him. He has still gotten access to it in an illegitimate way. "Intellectual property" serves to avoid such loopholes.

Please give me your specific reasoning. Let me give you another example for this. Suppose B throws out the item, or it has been mislaid with no direct link. C, who claims it, has signed no contract, nor bought it from any person who did, forbidding copying. Is your contention that he is still forbidden to copy it?

Further, we have not gone into simultaneous creation. There have been and will be inventors making identical discoveries, or artists coming up with the same works (if only in part-for instance the name of a literary character). Obviously no contract exists here. Are we saying these people have "stolen" from another by their slightly later creation?

I do agree though, that patents and copyrights can be misused to gain an illegitimate monopolistic advantage; as can all other property titles.

As you know, I feel that monopolizing ideas were and remain their purpose. If one entity (whether individual or firm) "owns" the idea of a useful invention and can legally bar competitors, this creates a major barrier to entry. Significantly, patent-pooling can be and has been used to monopolize a whole sector of the economy. In the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, competitors spend a great deal of money on work-around drugs that are changed just enough to evade the patent restriction. On the other hand, a patent-owner will often change it just enough to allow for re-patenting of the product. It cannot help but drive up prices and entrench firms, stifling competition. Recall in these cases this is not copyright or patent by contract-rather, at government fiat.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick