1997-04-14 - Re: Monopoly as damage…

Header Data

From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d1f611a125798be4cdd02f3a04d360d29244835865b7f31d8661dbf658f459ce
Message ID: <v03020975af774183c3d9@[139.167.130.246]>
Reply To: <v0302093caf76a0b78618@[139.167.130.246]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-04-14 02:32:19 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:32:19 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Monopoly as damage...
In-Reply-To: <v0302093caf76a0b78618@[139.167.130.246]>
Message-ID: <v03020975af774183c3d9@[139.167.130.246]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 7:20 pm -0400 on 4/13/97, Timothy C. May wrote:


> >Hettinga's paraphrase of Gilmore's Law:
> >
> >"A geodesic economy sees monopoly as damage and routes around it."
> >
>
> But generally not accurate. The Hettinga version, not the Gilmore version.

Utterly inaccurate. We don't have a geodesic economy. Yet. :-).

> If one defines monopoly in the sense apparently intended here, meaning that
> Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco are "monopolies" (each has about a consistent
> 70-80% market share in their primary markets), there is very little real
> evidence that a "geodesic economy" (whatever _that_ is) treats these
> monopolies as damage and routes around them.

There is very little evidence for "geodesic economies", in general.
"Geodesic markets", like "Crypto Anarchy", or the "Information
Superhighway", is just a handy hypothetical folks people made up for
entertainment some boring afternoon. :-).

As to whether Wintel (not now, but soon) and Cisco (probably not ever) are
monopolies, and as to whether that will matter, I'll leave that as an
exercise for the reader.

No, Virginia, I don't believe in path dependence, either. Monoculture,
however, happens every once in a while, particularly in markets mapped to
industrial communications hierarchies. BillG is probably the last tycoon,
in that regard.

> There are much better models for why such monopolies eventually reach
> certain limits, or face new competitors, or otherwise decline.

Seeing as there no models for things like "Crypto Anarchy", or "Geodesic
Markets", which have no data yet to model, the above comment is
tautologous. Doesn't seem to stop either one of us from making
prognostications about them, however...

> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

"Market controls, including monopolistic practices, aren't even rent-a-cops
in a geodesic marketplace."

Whatever *that* means.

;-).

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga



-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete
               with the New York Times?"
Andrew Kantor: "Yes."  Stahl:  "Isn't that dangerous?"
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/








Thread