From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 21:43:29 MDT
Harvey writes, quoting Hal:
> > Aren't you saying it is un-extropian to use lawsuits to suppress
> > competition? And isn't that what a corporation does when it sues to
> > stop a competitor from exploiting the corporation's property?
>
> Yes and no. I do not see these as the same thing at all. A company
> defending its property is fine. This is not the same thing as
> suppressing competition. Fair and legal competition is what I am
> talking about. Don't stretch my desire for a free market to allow
> piracy and fraud to occur unchecked. A lawsuit to shutdown pirates,
> protect intellectual property, and expose fraud, is all good and
> extropian. This is not the same thing as suppressing competition at
> all. What I mean by suppressing competition is when nuisance lawsuits
> with no basis in fact are used to slow down or bankrupt another company
> with a superior product. This is a underhanded legal trick used by
> companies that can't compete fairly.
Okay, I see the distinction you are drawing now, and it makes sense.
Many people use the phrase "suppressing competition" to refer to any use
of IP and property rights to obstruct competitors, and I thought that's
what you meant.
> When Luddites try to gain intellectual property rights and patents for
> the sole purpose of suppressing technology or preventing technological
> advancement, that is unextropian. When a bigger company buys out a
> superior smaller company just to destroy its superior product line
> rather than improving its own product or competing in the marketplace,
> that is unextropian. When a company brings a false allegation against
> another, with no basis in fact, just force delays and costs onto
> competitors, that is unextropian.
It may be possible to improve market incentives so that these activities
become less common. I don't think the Luddite trick is done very often
because market competitors have so much more incentive to invent things
than obstructionists. Buying out a company with a superior product
makes sense, but then killing the product rather than exploiting it,
once you control it, is shooting yourself in the foot (and I think is
often done for the benefit of management rather than stockholders).
And false allegations and obstructionist lawsuits can in principle be
fought with litigation insurance and cooperative, joint legal defense
efforts. So in addition to being unextropian, most of these practices
stand a good chance of being rendered economically unviable.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST