🚀 go-pugleaf

John Bayko wrote:
> 
> In article <KETIL-87ems155li.fsf_-_@tosca.infotek.no>,
>     Ketil Z Malde  <ketil@ii.uib.no> wrote:
> >Chris Fischer <cfischer@frontiernet.net> writes:
> >
> >> But the reason for Public Service Commissions is because it is stupid to
> >> run 2 sets of phone lines down every street.  It's a natural monopoly.
> >
> >> What reason would there be for them to regulate a software company?
> >
> >Because software, to some extent, is a common good and a natural
> >monopoly.
> >
> >It's a common good in the sense that my consumption of software doesn't
> >affect your consumption of the same - like air, police or whatever.
> >
> >It's a natural monopoly, according to the textbook definition, since the
> >marginal cost curve is monotonically decreasing.  Meaning that producing
> >the n+1th copy of some software package is cheaper than producing the
> >nth.  [...]
> 
>     You can say the same thing about movies. It would also be
> ridiculous to claim that they should be regulated to prevent
> monopolies.
> 
> --
> John Bayko (Tau).
> bayko@cs.uregina.ca
> http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~bayko

Actually, both software and movies are nearly the opposite of a
natural monopoly.  Software is generally very easy for an end customer
to copy and redistribute, and movies can also be copied, although
more sophisticated equipment is required.  It is only by government
regulation (copyright laws) that these products can become monopolies.

Sincerely,

Greg Gritton


Note:  Definatly speaking for myself only.