|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Please remember that the whole point of laws
against
anti-competitive behavior is to protect consumers.
It is not to protect less
efficient competitors. Even in a
make-believe world where people were forced to
use the GPL,
I don't see how consumers are harmed by the example you
gave. You
yourself say it results in products that are
[more] useful for end-users. When
there is virtually no risk
of a sudden and unfair rise in price (or really any
rise in
price) then I don't see how consumers are harmed by getting
a better
product at a lower price.
Except that companies are
increasingly making the
argument that consumers are harmed by the lack of
competition. Competition is supposed to be some amazing
force that drives
everything in the world, therefore lack of
competition is bad. Companies that
are too good should be
handicapped so the less skilled companies can provide
competition to benefit consumers.
... or so the argument seems to go. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 05:36 AM EDT |
"It is not to protect less efficient competitors."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
