Re: Biased journalism, or let's try to ask Declan some questions he can sink his teeth into

[Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>]

I believe governments should have "antitrust" authority to let them do
things like strike down contracts on anticompetitive grounds. There is a
long and distinguished history of related caselaw that goes back half a
millennium to English common law. 

In principle, I think the only true monopolies are government-created
ones, though in practice it looks like nothing's going to come around in
the near future to unseat Microsoft. I fear both private and government
power, though usually refrain from using the latter to attack the former.

I dislike special interest lobbying by corporations out to help just
themselves and not the general public. Microsoft is as guilty of this as
many companies (though not as much as some -- they don't get direct cash
subsidies from the Feds, for instance). 

I'm deeply skeptical of the politics of antitrust. It's turned out to be
very partisan. Worse yet, there's the revolving-door problem: antitrust
officials have an incentive to file mammoth cases that get them good press
and raise their profile. Then they leave and take jobs in the private
sector. This creates an incentive to take on companies in a brash show of
force -- and by the time the case goes to trial, the official is long
gone. Style over substance? Perhaps.

I think technology may have outpaced the law's ability to keep up. That's
why I think the best way to take on Microsoft is through private community
(virtual and otherwise) activism without relying on the Feds. Boycotts,
consumer alerts, and so on. That's how you can raise awareness and
convince people, if you like, that buying Microsoft is a bad idea. 

These are just some brief ideas. More at:

   Linkname: "In God We Antitrust"
   Filename: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/article/0,2334,12942,00.html

-Declan


On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Declan, let me ask you the following questions:
> 
> Do you think it is possible to compete in a free but finite number of producers
> market on the basis of something other than efficiency?
> 
> Do you think it is in the societal interest to prohibit competition other than on
> the basis of efficiency (selling a better product at a better price)?
> 
> Do you think the Anti-Trust Laws play a valuable role in reducing though not
> eliminating the feasability of competing other than on the basis of efficiency?
> 
> Do you think that where government granted monopolies are concerned, that is to
> say copyrights and patents and trade secrets, the government must exert great care
> to ensure that these monopolies are not extended beyond the scope of the
> innovation that they reward, and to prevent a company from leveraging them to
> create monopolies in other areas?
> 
> Do you accept the notion that markets are finite, and that where markets are
> composed of a mixture of semi-competitive markets firms can gain advantage by
> linking their products across the markets so as to exclude competitors without
> footholds in all of those markets?  Do you agree that such linking is inimical to
> the societal interest as it reduces the role of efficiency in determining sales
> and market success?  Do you agree that where marginal cost is lower than market
> price, as is normally the case in semi-competitive markets, there is often an
> advantage to a monopoly that can tie its products in doing so, thereby reducing
> the freedom of the consumer to mix-and-match?  I can flush this out in more detail
> if you like (http://www.idiom.com/~beverly/sumjudge.html has somewhat more
> details).
> 
> Do you think these questions pertain to MS?
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Hans
> 
> PS
> 
> Brett, you are just insulting Declan, and not shedding much light in the doing.  I
> think Declan is merely someone who is less afraid of monopolies than governments.
> I on the other hand view democratic governments as horrible but better than
> non-democratic monopolies.  Monopolies and governments are different flavors of
> the same thing in my mind.  We are more sophisticated in taming the evils of
> governments, but.....  This is why I would rather see MS destroyed than converted
> into a government (utility), as its destruction might allow for a semi-competitive
> market to replace it.
> 
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > Robin, how dare you interject facts in this discussion! It's true: I tend
> > to be somewhat sympathetic to classical liberal and free market arguments.
> > I would quibble, however, with Robin's characterization of an
> > "anti-government bias." I'm not anti-government; like Locke, I argue that
> > we need a strong, limited, and fair one.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Robin wrote:
> >
> > > > > And your mission appears to be to make sure they "understand" it your way
> > > > > by feeding them misinformation. Sir, you are beneath contempt.
> > >
> > > My handy definition of a biased journalist is: "One with
> > > whom I do not always agree."
> > >
> > > Declan is, therefore, a biased journalist.
> > >
> > > However, I also happen to know that he is neither a lover
> > > of, nor a booster of, Microsoft products. If you *really*
> > > want to get him going, ask him about his NexT box. Go ahead.
> > > Try it.
> > >
> > > However, Declan is absolutely a libertarian, and therefore
> > > biased against government intervention in almost all
> > > matters, from speech limitations on. Most of the advocacy
> > > journalism that "made his name" related to online censorship
> > > and privacy issues.
> > >
> > > What you are seeing in his writing is an anti-goverment
> > > bias, not a pro-Microsoft bias.
> > >
> > > I know some computer writers who might as well be MS flacks.
> > > Declan is not one of them.
> > >
> > > --robin miller
> > >
> 
> 
> 
>