Libertarian solution to Microsoft browser ballot?

[The Idler]

Microsoft have been forced by the EU into introducing a browser ballot screen on Windows offering users the choice between different browsers. The reason the EU gave is because bundling Internet Explorer is anti-competitive. What would libertarians do?

On the other hand, Apple's bundling of its hardware with its operating system seems to enjoy the support of the state in the recent Psystar case.

[Havet]

Who forced other OS to include the option of using different browsers?

[whore]

the reason that microsoft are forced to show other browsers is because they have an effective monopoly in the desktop operating system market. and then they used this to try and get a monopoly in the browser market. which they could use to try and leverage a monopoly in the server market, and in other markets (such as corporate web email).

apple have such a small (relative) market share, they can do whatever they want. they arent a monopoly in computers. nor mobile phones or online music.

and libertarians generally dont think about using a monopoly in one area (whether it is a natural, or unnatural monopoly, such as windows on computers everywhere) to get a monopoly in another. they dont tend to think at all.

[Havet]

How did Microsoft achieve an effective monopoly?

[Aesop]

Well it wasn’t because it was nationalised industry (which a substantially number of libertarians says is the cause for the development of monopolises)

[whore]

How did Microsoft achieve an effective monopoly?
not by being honest im sure. in fact, if my memory of the usa anti-trust case is correct, by illegal activity.

and certainly not by moral actions.

they didnt support standards (and still barely do). they "Embrace, extend and extinguish" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish)

we are lucky that we have the open internet we have today.

[Havet]

not by being honest im sure. in fact, if my memory of the usa anti-trust case is correct, by illegal activity.


I'd say it was done by legal activity (http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/microsoft_monopoly.html#SUBSECTION_3.1)

It is legal to prevent competition using force. its called intellectual property.

[IcarusAngel]

Microsoft should be broken up by the government.

Microsoft is a monopoly. They are the only ones who have access to over 50% of the market share. That is the very definition of a monopoly: they are the only ones who have the power to force software developers and hardware developers to sign exclusive contracts to ONLY develop for MS. They are the only ones who can partner up with other monopolies, like Intel and so on. They are the only ones with access to thousands of patents, forcing others to submit to MS rule if they try and market their own ideas. (You got a new product? Looks like something in there is "similar" to one of our patents. Either turn over your new patent to us or sell us the whole product, or we'll sue you.)

Even without patents, they would be a monopoly since they are the only capitalistic force that can take other people's ideas and market them. Nobody else has the resources and the market share as MS.

I think all software should be put back into the University system and in the free-software movement. The government merely has to take away MS's rights and break up their monopoly, and you would see more diversity in software than you saw with phones when the govt. broke up the AT&T monopoly (merely by rearranging its own laws, really).

[IcarusAngel]

Who forced other OS to include the option of using different browsers?

What the hell does this sentence even mean? English please.

[Havet]

What the hell does this sentence even mean? English please.

Who forced other OPERATING SYSTEMS to include the option of being able to choose between different browsers?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Microsoft have been forced by the EU into introducing a browser ballot screen on Windows offering users the choice between different browsers. The reason the EU gave is because bundling Internet Explorer is anti-competitive. What would libertarians do?

On the other hand, Apple's bundling of its hardware with its operating system seems to enjoy the support of the state in the recent Psystar case.
Well the reason for the difference is that bundling software is not actually illegal under competition law per se. Abusing a dominant position in the market is. Apple don't have a dominant position in the software market so they can't be held liable under the abuse of dominant position rule.

Of course, being a monopoly isn't illegal either. The law tries to balance economic freedom and competition by allowing monopolies to exist but not letting them abuse their dominant position in the marketplace. They fail in trying to achieve this balance, as noted above: because there are other areas of the law which allow companies to raise barriers to competition in certain circumstances (eg patents) and where the company is a large one with a dominant position in the market it can abuse this practice.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Who forced other OPERATING SYSTEMS to include the option of being able to choose between different browsers?
No one. No other operating system has to do this; only Microsoft operating systems, ie Windows.

[Havet]

No one. No other operating system has to do this; only Microsoft operating systems, ie Windows.

Exactly

So the question is not that the Software industry was "unregulated", but that somehow* a certain business rose above everyone else to the point where they could start losing public input.

*And that is the result of intellectual property laws.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Exactly

So the question is not that the Software industry was "unregulated", but that somehow* a certain business rose above everyone else to the point where they could start losing public input.

*And that is the result of intellectual property laws.
I don't see that as being in dispute on this thread. Everyone recognises that IP is a barrier to competition.

Interestingly, Neelie Kroes who was formerly the EC competition commissioner is now the digital commissioner.

[Dean]

Who forced other OPERATING SYSTEMS to include the option of being able to choose between different browsers?

The programmers who designed them.

[Left-Reasoning]

The abolition of Intellectual Monopoly laws, followed by the disestablishment of the Microsoft Corporation.

[IcarusAngel]

And how are you going to bring about the disestablishment of MS?

By the way, I don't really care if they are broken up by the government. My point is that I'm different to it as a leftist. Maybe the fact that monopolies exist is a further argument I can use against capitalism, and MS has done some good stuff from a programmer's perspective (I still claim C# is as good if not better than java).

And dean is right; programmers DEMOCRATICALLY include different browsers. When I use linux, I can apt-get install firefox, lynx (text browser), and others. That's how it should be, the workers should be in charge of the resources (as they often are in the elite University system but we do not all have access to that).

[LeftSideDown]

And how are you going to bring about the disestablishment of MS?

By the way, I don't really care if they are broken up by the government. My point is that I'm different to it as a leftist. Maybe the fact that monopolies exist is a further argument I can use against capitalism, and MS has done some good stuff from a programmer's perspective (I still claim C# is as good if not better than java).

And dean is right; programmers DEMOCRATICALLY include different browsers. When I use linux, I can apt-get install firefox, lynx (text browser), and others. That's how it should be, the workers should be in charge of the resources (as they often are in the elite University system but we do not all have access to that).

I can honestly say I do not care if a company has 50% of a marketshare in an "industry" whatever that is. For instance, Coca-Cola has 100% of the marketshare in selling "Coca-cola", is this a monopoly? Well obviously you wouldn't want to define an industry as just one product, so what about carbonated beverages in general? Or would you just go soda? Or perhaps you'd do all drinks? If they have 50% of the market share in ALL drinks than they have monopoly. But maybe you can define it is all things that provide sustenance. Who defines what an industry is?

If a company has 50% of the market share without coercion and is honestly just more efficient than its competitors (better product, cheaper price) who cares if they have a monopoly? If they start restricting entry into the market, than you have a monopoly. But restriction, mind you, is not the same competition. If they continuously out compete, well consumers win.

[RGacky3]

*And that is the result of intellectual property laws.

Wait? Apple does patent its products? Or Technologies? Don't they use the intellectual property laws as well to benefit themselves?

[Havet]

Wait? Apple does patent its products? Or Technologies? Don't they use the intellectual property laws as well to benefit themselves?

Yup

[RGacky3]

So then its not an unfair advantage is it?

[Havet]

So then its not an unfair advantage is it?

Yes, it is. It prevents other businesses and software developers from developing the same OS or tweak it, since they will fear entering a court case.

Since they are artificially restricting something that would otherwise be infinitely reproducible, they gain an unfair advantage.

[RGacky3]

But other companies can just develop their Own OS and patent it as well ... Thats what they do.

[Havet]

But other companies can just develop their Own OS and patent it as well ... Thats what they do.

And they gain more unfair advantage over others. By patenting OS, they increase the cost of that kind of technology, besides preventing its faster progression and enhancement.

Patents are expensive. Not all companies can afford to R&D an unique OS and then patent. Even if they could, it's still based on a flawed principle.