● 09.12.11
●● The Business Deception of Exclusive Monopolies and Shared Monopolies
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft at 6:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Rebuttal to the argument of uniformity though reduction of competition and cooperation
THERE is a danger inherent in monopoly for many different reasons that necessitated special laws and regulations. Monopolies limit choice, impede competition, reduce quality of service because they can afford to, and typically slow down progress because they lack incentive to improve. In duopoly, there is agreement between two parties to do this together and slice the market, dividing it among themselves. For 3 or more parties, cartels can exist to assure price-fixing and other abusive practices that hurt the market and enrich members of the cartel. All of these forms of industry organisation come about naturally with expansion or a government franchise. It is often being said that it’s acceptable and even beneficial to have monopolies or shared monopolies in particular areas of industry such as energy, water, telephone etc. due to shared infrastructure. Microsoft has been trying to make up excuses along those lines, dishonestly arguing that a Windows plus Office monopoly is a Good Thing in the sense that it standardises desktop computing. This is a false argument because standard APIs and consistent structures across applications can be coordinated such that everything works in cohesion and harmony. Sharing binary data is not the same as sharing water that goes through the same water conduit.
Suffice to say, Linux has been under attack recently — an attack which has cartels behind it. This is not an attack on Linux per se. Linux is among the leading projects that demonstrate healthy collaboration and low cost to customers; Android is an example of that. Now that Android is taking over a lucrative market, its foes come to grips with the fact that it won’t just go away on its own. They therefore try to portray Android as a violation of the law, as if it is illegal to compete. By joining financial resources for extortion through litigation, Linux foes hope to repel and expel their most potent competitor. Had it been MeeGo in this position, they would have tried that too. Apple even threatened Palm a couple of years ago, just as it had introduced WebOS. What gives?
“To call something which is free a “monopoly” is almost like alleging that breathing is free and thus oxygen is monopolistic.”A new pattern of FUD emerges, claiming that Android is a monopoly even though it is free (just as Google search is free and nobody is forced to use it). To call something which is free a “monopoly” is almost like alleging that breathing is free and thus oxygen is monopolistic. If the code is a public asset, then the harm is very much limited.
So how “open” or free (gratis and freedom) is Android really? It is not as bad as Microsoft and Apple would love people to think. Those companies clearly want to crush Android using software patents and incitations of all sorts. Some time in the past we found the allegation that Open Source is “a cartel”. Quite a way to spin collaboration, eh? Trying to criminalise it even.
Well, the bottom line is, what we see here are monopolies or former monopolies showing their hypocrisy, describing what liberates us from monopolies as a monopoly. We oughn’t fall for this spin doctoring. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.