From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 14:58:24 MST
Noah Horton wrote:
> I consider that rant to be basically equivalent to what Bill Gates is
> being charged with here. Yeah, in retrospect, we could have come up
> with a better design for cars than what Ford popularized. Yeah, in
> retrospect, we could have come up with a better design for an OS than
> what Gates popularized. Yes, the infastructure of gas stations that
> Ford caused has been an impediment to cars that use other fuels.
> Yes, the infastructure of software that Gates caused has been an
> impediment to computers that use other OS's.
### I think it is misleading to compare Ford and Gates. Ford cars use the
same gas as GM and Toyota. There is no monopoly, no standard, but free
(relatively) competition. In the OS world, things are different. Windows
computers do not work with Linux and other applications. The OS is the
analogue of the gas station, not the car.
A better analogy is the design of an electric outlet. You could easily and
cheaply design a multitude of mutually incompatible outlets, and indeed, in
the beginning of the electrification of the world there were many of them.
Yet, only one design could win in any country because of the need to work
with a large number of independent appliances.
Imagine that the concept of copyright, with essentially unlimited duration
of protection, was used for the design of the outlet, instead of a patent,
or an open standard. Every receptacle would essentially forever (as long as
the Congress is willing to extend the protection term) come with a royalty
fee, maybe a dollar, just low enough so you wouldn't be tempted to buy
competition (and have to replace all your appliances). Over the years, this
would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, all for a trivial
invention, which became a standard due in large part to chance. Imagine not
only wall outlets but all other industrial standards were covered by
copyright (like Windows is). You'd forever pay a royalty on every screw,
light bulb, socket wrench, and the fortunes of their inventors would soar.
There would be hardly any cash left for new inventions.
Windows is a standard, by chance, more than anything else. It is highly
counterproductive to use copyright to funnel resources to makers of this
standard, resources which could be much better used by the free market.
---------
>
> I can already hear people flaming back regarding how Windows only
> succeeded because of illegal practices. Well, let me point out
> something. Up until (roughly) five years ago, MS had very little of
> the server market share. Most common types of server software ran on
> the various flavors of Unix, and most companies had a big installed
> base of those Unix boxes. Yet Microsoft's market share has steadily
> risen despite that installed base that was working against it.
> Companies had no reason to install Microsoft boxes other than the
> merits of the OS.
### If you own the electric grid (and by law nobody can copy it), people
will use the transformers that fit the grid. Companies have to comply with a
de facto standard. In the grid analogy, MS owns both the grid, and the
design of the transformers. As long as the heavy hand of the state supports
Mr. Gates, there is hardly any escape.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:09 MST