Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 23:24:16 +0200 From: J.McKeown@ru.ac.za To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Competition law (was Re: Canon printer and TurboPrint) Message-ID: <20090529232416.30761kw9zzhlqav4@mail.ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <20090529111326.17638be5@scorpio> References: <23711563.post@talk.nabble.com> <200905290934.36220.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> <20090529064800.7c0c10d3@scorpio> <200905291550.45971.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> <20090529111326.17638be5@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Jerry <gesbbb@yahoo.com>: > Look up the definition of 'socialism'. I know what socialism means. You seem not to. I haven't anywhere =20 advocated state ownership of businesses - in fact I very clearly =20 stated that I believe in a free market with only that level of =20 regulation required to keep it free from monopoly abuse. > The original suit was based on laws designed to curtail the railroad > industry, actually Rockefeller. The original judge was prejudiced and > an appeals court through out most of the suit and required a hearing on > the remain portions. The suit eventually was of minimal importance. The appeals court didn't throw out a single one of the court's =20 findings of guilt: they examined the evidence and affirmed every last =20 bit of it. Because the trial judge had spoken to the press before the =20 case was concluded about Microsoft's conduct in his court, they found =20 that his *sentence* was unsafe and asked another court to reconsider =20 it. (Oh, and incidentally Rockefeller was Standard Oil, not railroads). > Typical socialist thinking. If you cannot produce a better product, get > the government to regulate them for you. Again, I'm not a socialist. I'm not asking any government to overthrow =20 better products in favour of worse ones. I am asking courts to enforce =20 existing laws about unfair competition which suppresses potentially =20 better products. >> Even a free market requires some regulation of business practices [discussion of clearly illegal and dangerous behaviour] > > Good idea, change the context of the discussion. We are not talking > about product safety here. As far as I know, Microsoft does not produce > food products. However, I did see an article recently regarding OpenSSL > and a defect in their product. Are you saying that anyone who was > effected by the 'bug' has a right to sue the authors of that software. No, I'm not. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm trying to make the =20 point that even a completely free market will need some oversight, =20 because some companies will do anything for a short-term profit, up to =20 and including actually poisoning their customers, if they aren't =20 prevented by regulation. > Now that is a true socialist. Attack and regulate a company until you > put it out of business. Once again, I'm not a socialist. You keep using that word: I do not =20 think it means what you think it means. I'm also not suggesting =20 attacking companies, only ensuring that they obey the law as it stands. > The basic premise of your argument is that any company or entity that is > success should be regulated. I find that concept pure socialistic > bullshit. No. My basic premise is that every company should be regulated in the =20 same way, and that should include laws to prevent unfair competition. =20 Since unfair competition tends to rely on control of the market, that =20 area of the law has more impact on companies once they achieve a =20 monopoly. Those laws needn't prevent a company establishing or =20 maintaining market dominance by competing fairly and legally. Strangely enough, that is also the basic premise of competition law =20 all over the world. >> To take a couple of your other points: no, I wouldn't buy your Ferrari >> ``in a heartbeat''. [snip] >> People don't sell anything at well below its market value without =20 >> some form of ulterior motive > > I never said the product was stolen or pilfered. Those are your > assumptions. I create a product and distribute it. It is none of the > government's business what I sell it for as long as I pay the tax on it. If your business model is to sell a $300,000 car for $10, the =20 government won't need to intervene. If you manage to stay in business =20 for any length of time they may well start taking an interest - not =20 many people establish a business with the intention of giving away =20 their own money on that scale, and giving away other people's money is =20 generally illegal. >> For example, there are strict laws in most places governing the sale >> of goods at below cost (dumping)[...] > > One again, you want 'big brother' aka the government to protect you. Yes, once again I want the law enforced. Shock horror. Check US =20 anti-dumping laws, the Sherman Act, and competition law generally. You =20 can argue that the law is wrong, but don't try and pretend it isn't =20 the law. >> I'm not sure where copyright laws suddenly sprang into the equation, >> but I can assure you, as someone who works with Free software, I'm a >> firm believer in copyright laws. I don't write much code but it's >> copyright that prevents people stealing what I do write. > > Come on now. Are you saying that you do not publicly post any code > that you create for anyone to use sans payment? Or are you implying > that it is perfectly OK to steal code from any company/individual whose > profits exceed yours sans fees? Maybe I should get some government > intervention here to see what you are hiding? Er, what? I don't see how on earth you got from ``I'm a firm believer =20 in copyright laws'' to ``it is perfectly OK to steal code''. In fact, =20 I'm struggling to make much sense of this paragraph at all. I believe =20 in the right of the author to dictate the way in which his work is =20 used - that's what copyright means. > There are many truisms in business. Two of my favorite ones are: > > 1) No legitimate business ever benefited from government intervention. I can't be bothered to look for counter-examples but I doubt this. > 2) You can always tell a socialist; you just cannot tell him much. This isn't a truism - it's a cheap shot at whatever you mean by a =20 ``socialist'' (from what you've said above, a socialist appears to =20 mean someone who believes in the rule of law, since all I've done is =20 argue in defence of existing laws, while you seem to be saying - =20 insofar as you're making any sense at all - that once a business =20 reaches a certain level of success, the law should stop applying to it). Oh, and finally: > The same basic idea was tried in the US with 'affirmative action' > that entitled the lazy, stupid, etc. the same rights and privileges > as those who worked their ass off. Affirmative action is about attempting to redress the wrong done to =20 people who were historically discriminated against because of their =20 race. Whether or not you believe that affirmative action is the right =20 way to go about it, suggesting that black people are all lazy and =20 stupid and that they should not have the same rights as others is =20 remarkably offensive, especially when you're talking to someone in =20 South Africa.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090529232416.30761kw9zzhlqav4>