4 comments

• 

  sccarper

  1 year ago

  "To me it’s clear that forced access laws limit innovation."
  
  Really, what about Carterphone? Do you really think the explosion of devices for phone lines--from **affordable** direct connect answering machines, fax machines, 56k modems, cordless phones and DLS would have occurred without Carterphone? I think not.
  reply
• 

  Jerry Brito

  1 year ago

  sccarper- As we've explained before on this blog, the Carterfone decision made sense when it was handed down because there was government-protected monopoly for telecommunications. There are no longer any protected monopolies in this marketplace. See http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042060.php
  reply
• 

  sccarper

  1 year ago

  "sccarper- As we've explained before on this blog, the Carterfone decision made sense when it was handed down because there was government-protected monopoly for telecommunications. There are no longer any protected monopolies in this marketplace. See http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042060.php"
  
  Thank you for the link. However, your statement in the OP was unqualified, so I feel justified in questioning it.
  reply
• 

  Krist

  1 year ago

  Apple will run in to the same problem in most European countries. Many countries don't even allow locking phones to a particular network.
  
  However Apple can just sell the unlocked iPhone for a price that covers its costs plus whatever profit it wishes to make on it. In addition Apple still can get into mutually beneficial exclusive deals with phone companies, where people buying a contract with Apple's phone partner get the phone for a lot less.
  reply