Subject: Re: CNET: The coming open monopoly in software
From: Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: 25 Oct 2001 16:56:44 +0900

>>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:

    kms> Kudos to Petr and Tim.

The analysis seems OK on a quick skimming, but their definition of
"natural monopoly" has nothing to do with the economist's definition.

In fact, all of the factors they mention (except switching costs)
motivate a conclusion we already know: there is nothing natural about
monopoly in software---it needs to be created by law and/or some kind
of bullying.[1]  (Russ: don't bother. ;-)

Just to point out that economists don't see it differently.

Stephen Turnbull, EDL, VP CKT
(Economists' Defense League, VP for Courage, Knowledge, and Trust)


Footnotes: 
[1]  Or you could invent one hell of a lot faster than your
competitors can reverse engineer, but that's implausible in software.
Some economists don't realize that, forgive them.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.