From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:20:20 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
Message-ID: <199810062119.QAA09408@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
> Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 -0700 

> The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable"
> markets without some artificial "mechanism."

Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky habit of sticking
terms in there where they don't go hoping somebody won't catch it. We're
talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; provider and
consumer. If I allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit
assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't accept a
bastardization of free-market in that manner.

If you want to expand your argument by the injection of these spurious terms
(they aren't relevant to my argument) feel free. Be warned I will continue
to point out the distinction vis-a-vis the impact on conclusions.

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

I mean *dominate* the market. Quit sticking extra terms in there trying 
to subtly change the meaning. I promise you I will notice so you can quit
now.

> ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the
> bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence
> have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a
> coercive monopoly.

No, that is the definition of monopoly. Now what and how they got and retain
that position may invoke coercion but it *isn't* a requirement for
monoplies by definition. Don't try to confuse method with type.

> 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. In the past when this has
been brought up I've asked for an explanation of how this dynamic works and
specificaly what prevents such best-of-breed examples from existing.

I'm still waiting for such an explanation.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------