Subject: Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
From: Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:39:40 -0800

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:

> The point of the rant/lecture is simply that in the U.S. over 50% of
> the public is fairly directly stockholders (and through pension funds
> and the like, that figure goes to 70% or 80%), so profits are
> benefits, _not costs_, to the public.  

I am not following your reasoning here.  You have a couple different
notions of public here.  First we have the public of which 50% are
directly shareholders (the public which profits from monopoly prices),
then we have the public that pays monopoly prices.  Looks like you
have capital moving from one half of the public to another.  How is
that generalized into public benefit?  This says nothing of the
differential between the monopoly price, and the profit these
stockholders actually see, which would in most cases still be a cost
to them.  Is there some voodoo going on here I'm not seeing?



-- 
Craig Brozefsky                         <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software     http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"riot shields. voodoo economics. its just business. cattle 
 prods and the IMF." - Radiohead, OK Computer, Electioneering