RE: Antrust and lock-in

[Brian Blackman <bblackman@i-enternet.com>]

Being prone to hasty conclusions, I'll admit that I am probably missing a larger point.  However, I am not suggesting that we throw Windows '95 out with BillG.  I am only suggesting that having more than one manufacturer/vendor of Win'95 is the ultimate goal.  As consumers, we get the standardization and the competitive pricing.  

Perhaps what I am suggesting is more eminent domain than intellectual property.  The government takes the innovative value from the innovator at the optimal point (the point where the innovator is just willing to risk the costs of innovation, but no further).  Its not really a temporal point, but since it covaries, it seems easier to set a time limit.  And while uniformly limiting patents/copyrights to a limited amount of time is applying a broadax to a bunion, it seems more efficient than continuing to allow MS to take monopolistic profits or having Justice attempt to conjure up and enforce Sherman Act violations.

Brian Blackman
bblackman@i-enternet.com 


-----Original Message-----
From:	Etchison, Michael [SMTP:etchison@puc.texas.gov]
Sent:	Monday, April 13, 1998 6:43 PM
To:	Multiple recipients of list ANTITRUST
Subject:	Re: Antrust and lock-in

	Brian Blackman proposes some sort of limits -- temporal, maybe -- for 
intellectual property, as a way of dealing with network effects.  The 
point, however, is that if they are genuine network effects, they may be 
intrinsic:  there may be a natural strong tendency for the market to 
settle on one location/system/design/standard _because of the benefits to 
the customer_.  To deprive customers of this benefit in order to strip 
BillG of some of his billions is to use a broadax on one's foot.
Michael E. Etchison
etchison@puc.texas.gov
[opinions mine, not the PUCT's]