🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KETIL-8767d7wvkv.fsf@tosca.infotek.no>,
    Ketil Z Malde  <ketil@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>bayko@aristotle.cs.uregina.ca (John  Bayko) writes:
>
>>> It's a common good in the sense that my consumption of software doesn't
>>>It's a natural monopoly, according to the textbook definition, since the 
>
>>     You can say the same thing about movies. It would also be
>>     ridiculous to claim that they should be regulated to prevent
>>     monopolies.
>
>Well, I don't think there's any doubt that the monopolistic practices by
>the music and movie cartels are hurting consumers.  Whether government
>regulation is a solution, is a different matter, of course.

    Canada, BTW, has decided that it is - there are broadcast quotas
for "Canadian Content".

>However, I'm sure you realize that there are some obvious and radical
>differences between movies and software products.

    Yes, in that it is possible to make a movie for $30, and have it
bought by a distributer so that people can actually see it, and make
money, because it's good (ex. "Clerks").
    Personally, I think that the computer industry is open for abuse
simply because it is so new that the 'experts' are essentially as
clueless as the users, so a blanket statement such as "standardizing
on a Windows platform will reduce support costs" go unchallenged,
despite clear evidence to the contrary which shows that it prevents
"the right platform for the right job" from being used, and typically
vastly increases the support burden.
    The solution is not to regulate, IMO, but to wait for the industry
to mature, at which point Microsoft will either collapse under it's
own areas of incompetence, or become competent - either way, the core
problem, that of bad systems being chosen blindly over good systems,
won't continue.

--
John Bayko (Tau).
bayko@cs.uregina.ca
http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~bayko