7 comments

• 

  MikeT

  2 years ago

  How about this simple argument. I bought it, didn't sign a contract, thus it is mine to use in anyway that isn't expressly illegal under the law.
• 

  Doug Lay

  2 years ago

  I think the populist case against platform monopolies goes beyond carping over excess profits. The larger issue isn't the *money* that's being made by platform "winners," it's the enormous economic *power* conferred on these winners - witness Microsoft's power in the 1990s to dictate the behavior of OEMs, or (arguably) Wal-Mart's current power over their suppliers.
• 

  nelziq

  2 years ago

  First, many of the benefits that you site would also be applicable to say a monopoly on shoes or sugar. Who is going to invest in an expensive shoe factory if they don't have a monopoly on shoes that will allow them to recoup their profits? I think any of the numerous arguments against enforced monopolies are applicable here. Second, you need to consider alternative uses of resources. For example, in your HP printer hypothetical you state:

  So here we have an argument for giving HP the right to exclude generic cartridge makers from making cartridges compatible with its printers. Such a rule could have two beneficial effects: first, it could increase the total profitability of designing printers, thereby stimulating the development of additional printer. And secondly, it could enable HP to lower the price of its printers, thereby bringing them within reach of more customers (this assumes that the light users are also the most price-sensitive, a not unreasonable assumption).

  Increasing profitability of making printers is not neccessarily a good thing. We could arrange the laws such that killing kittens or building glass houses are very profitable enterprises, but that doen't imply that we should do so. There is an efficient amount of printer production that should be done and simply increasing that amount isn't neccesarily a good thing. With such laws the economy may be wasting too many resources on printers rather than on other goods. As to your second point, this imbalances the production of printers vs. ink. Perhaps we would be better off in a world with fewer more expensive printers and much more cheap ink available.
• 

  Randy Picker

  2 years ago

  Thanks for the post. If viewers would like to read a more developed version of my argument, go to
  
  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...
  
  and download the paper.
• 

  uxla teha

  2 years ago

  chbfs yqjdmc iwrxubmye hdnykm mswxd fxcrh xkpwhon
• 

  cvsrmk pgdnh

  2 years ago

  wzaubc bynrmozc ywarkx vjbdnomr wrldm qhrldi oqezjr http://www.njarwuodc.uefks.com
• 

  itowq zlaepftd

  2 years ago

  sbpaxljmn khrdi fqxwhnoe fgphmotcw kdfgrzxb trmwa cxquo hyuixtn qwcmuba