From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:34:40 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
Message-ID: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A193A7A28@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate wrote:
> > The only problem is your statement that one can dominate 
> > "saturable" markets without some artificial "mechanism."
> 
> Who said anything about 'artificial'?

I did. I state you cannot have a coercive monopoly without artificial
barriers (and hence a free market cannot have a coercive monopoly) and
you disagree. I am not sticking any terms where they don't go, you have
consistently theorized monopolies can exist in a free market.

Perhaps you should re-read my statement and not assume negatives where I
clearly did not write them.

> talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants;

That is a twisted and absolutely unjustified definition of a free
market. A free market lacks forceful restriction or prohibition of free
[consensual] trade. 

EXCEPT that which violates individual rights. I will argue that an
anarcho-capitalist market that treats force as a commodity is NOT a free
market.

There can be participants acting as agents, intermediaries and arbiters
for the traders.

> > If you mean dominate by
> > market share, then sure that is possible.
> 
> I mean *dominate* the market.

You cannot define a word with itself. What is *dominate* in context of a
market, and does that dominance imply the possession of arbitrary power?

> > have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the 
> > definition of a coercive monopoly.
> 
> No, that is the definition of monopoly.

The only valid definition, yes. I will gladly accept the invalidation
that dominant or exclusive market share necessarily constitute a
monopoly, as that does not in itself prove arbitrary power (immunity
from market economics).

> > You will find that that is not possible without an
> > artificial barrier to competition.
> 
> Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it 
> implies that given sufficient time *any* market strategy 
> will fail. In other words there is no best or efficient 
> strategy for a given market.

There is but ONE market strategy: to price at a point lower than new
entrants could sustain their business, and constantly increase
productive efficiency and reduce costs.

This works great in the short term, especially in emerging industries,
but it is statistically improbable for a company to maintain perfection.
The market is not static, it is always changing and technology often
favors new entrants who are not encumbered with legacy technology.

It is less relevant that such a company is unlikely to maintain that
position forever, but that such efficient dominance is good for the
market. Productive efficiency raises the standard of living.

	Matt