How do libertarians feel about Anti-trust law?

[liberty2897]

Not sure if this is the best place to post this (moderators: feel free to move elsewhere)

How do libertarians feel about Anti-trust law? I would assume that it is not a
good thing since it requires more government. On the other hand, how do we
stop corporations like Microsoft from forcing their hardware partners to lock
out alternative operating systems such as Linux? If the answer is that this
sort of thing is determined by consumer choices, then how do I stop the
collective masses from choosing Windows and harming my individual well-being?
If you say "get over it, it is only an operating system", I would agree that
there are more important issues at hand. It would not find it an easy thing to
deal with though. I've been succesful so far making my living running Linux
for the past 13 years. I realize that choice of operating system is not
a constitutional right, but I can't image how screwed I would be right now if
Windows was the only operating system that would run on new hardware.



http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/

Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

By Aaron Williamson | January 12, 2012

At the beginning of December, we warned the Copyright Office that operating system vendors would use UEFI secure boot anticompetitively, by colluding with hardware partners to exclude alternative operating systems. As Glyn Moody points out, Microsoft has wasted no time in revising its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.

The Certification Requirements define (on page 116) a "custom" secure boot mode, in which a physically present user can add signatures for alternative operating systems to the system's signature database, allowing the system to boot those operating systems. But for ARM devices, Custom Mode is prohibited: "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable." [sic] Nor will users have the choice to simply disable secure boot, as they will on non-ARM systems: "Disabling Secure [Boot] MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems." [sic] Between these two requirements, any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot.

While UEFI secure boot is ostensibly about protecting user security, these non-standard restrictions have nothing to do with security. For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled—a perverse demand if Custom Mode is a security threat. But the ARM market is different for Microsoft in three important respects:

Microsoft's hardware partners are different for ARM. ARM is of interest to Microsoft primarily for one reason: all of the handsets running the Windows Phone operating system are ARM-based. By contrast, Intel rules the PC world. There, Microsoft's secure boot requirements—which allow users to add signatures in Custom Mode or disable secure boot entirely—track very closely to the recommendations of the UEFI Forum, of which Intel is a founding member.
Microsoft doesn't need to support legacy Windows versions on ARM. If Microsoft locked unsigned operating systems out of new PCs, it would risk angering its own customers who prefer Windows XP or Windows 7 (or, hypothetically, Vista). With no legacy versions to support on ARM, Microsoft is eager to lock users out.
Microsoft doesn't control sufficient market share on mobile devices to raise antitrust concerns. While Microsoft doesn't command quite the monopoly on PCs that it did in 1998, when it was prosecuted for antitrust violations, it still controls around 90% of the PC operating system market—enough to be concerned that banning non-Windows operating systems from Windows 8 PCs will bring regulators knocking. Its tiny stake in the mobile market may not be a business strategy, but for now it may provide a buffer for its anticompetitive behavior there. (However, as ARM-based "ultrabooks" gain market share, this may change.)
The new policy betrays the cynicism of Microsoft's initial response to concerns over Windows 8's secure boot requirement. When kernel hacker Matthew Garrett expressed his concern that PCs shipped with Windows 8 might prevent the installation of GNU/Linux and other free operating systems, Microsoft's Tony Mangefeste replied, "Microsoft’s philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves." It is clear now that opportunism, not philosophy, is guiding Microsoft's secure boot policy.

Before this week, this policy might have concerned only Windows Phone customers. But just yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors. Unless Microsoft changes its policy, these may be the first PCs ever produced that can never run anything but Windows, no matter how Qualcomm feels about limiting its customers' choices. SFLC predicted in our comments to the Copyright Office that misuse of UEFI secure boot would bring such restrictions, already common on smartphones, to PCs. Between Microsoft's new ARM secure boot policy and Qualcomm's announcement, this worst-case scenario is beginning to look inevitable.

 

[onlyrp]

there should be no antitrust laws, corporations should be allowed to do whatever they wish, and consumers have no rights prior to doing business with the corporations. If a corporation did business with consumers on the condition that the company would not collude, then it's a violation of contract. But since no company would be stupid enough to agree in advance on their right to profit, consumers don't, and shouldn't have any claim against people who are not their property.

antitrust, anti-monopoly laws are a violation of private property, choice and freedom.

 

[onlyrp]

"On the other hand, how do we
stop corporations like Microsoft from forcing their hardware partners to lock
out alternative operating systems such as Linux"

Why should we stop it?

 

[onlyrp]

" I can't image how screwed I would be right now if
Windows was the only operating system that would run on new hardware."

you'd be pretty screwed, but realize that consumers and voters do not care about your well being, they care about their own, they will choose and vote whatever is best for them, not because it makes you a better living.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't personally feel that antitrust laws are entirely a bad thing. That said, I feel they're largely unnecessary if the government leaves markets alone because most monopolies are not created by free market forces but rather by government intervention. The Microsoft example is something of an exception, but it also proves the rule--Microsoft never actually had a monopoly. Apple products, for example, never ran the stuff. And there were other systems available for IBM clones the whole time, though they didn't sell well because Microsoft was so aggressive about getting their crap included with the purchase price of the hardware.

So, in this particular case, I feel like the government interference was more extortion than consumer protection. And I would rather see monopolies prevented by a lack of government interference in the first place than dealt with after they're created by strongarm tactics.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[pcosmar]

Am I a Libertarian? I would see no need for anti-trust laws in a free market.
Of course a free market does not exist,, and in the current system I suppose they are acceptable.

In a free market,corporations would likely not exist. Corporations are a construct of the state, and the laws that "govern" them are created by the state.
In a free market,, property is not a person and liability is not limited.
you can easily have partnerships and investors without incorporation.

You mention Micro$oft,, that opens another can of worms.
I believe that BOTH Patent laws and IP laws need to be readdressed,,amended and limited.
"Micro$oft" invents nothing, but profits off the works of others, by legal manipulation or outright theft. And prevents other innovation and improvement by the same means.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Anti-trust legislation is nothing but deeper regulation to try to fix something regulations created in the first place.

 

[low preference guy]

the same way we feel about fascism

 

[Rincewind]

I don't personally feel that antitrust laws are entirely a bad thing. That said, I feel they're largely unnecessary if the government leaves markets alone because most monopolies are not created by free market forces but rather by government intervention. The Microsoft example is something of an exception, but it also proves the rule--Microsoft never actually had a monopoly. Apple products, for example, never ran the stuff. And there were other systems available for IBM clones the whole time, though they didn't sell well because Microsoft was so aggressive about getting their crap included with the purchase price of the hardware.

So, in this particular case, I feel like the government interference was more extortion than consumer protection. And I would rather see monopolies prevented by a lack of government interference in the first place than dealt with after they're created by strongarm tactics.

This is pretty much my opinion. The combination of onerous government regulation on the marketplace, and corporatism and lobbying which causes the government to prop up the existing major players in a market, result in greatly increasing the entry barriers, and thus it becomes more difficult for a new firm to fill the void left by an existing firm that uses its market power to the detriment of the consumer. In a true free market, cartels could not sustain themselves, and monopolies could not capitalize on that monopoly power by price gouging.

However, that doesn't mean that antitrust law should fall completely by the wayside, as there are certain industries where it would still be a risk (generally those with extremely high barriers to entry even in a true free market - for instance, industries that require significant investments in infrastructure before the firm can produce a viable product). Still, the scope of antitrust law could be substantially reduced through deregulation and a shift away from corporatism.

While we're at it, lets just point something out here - it is not illegal to be a monopoly, assuming the company gained monopoly power through superiority of product.

 

[Inny Binny]

You want to stop giant software companies from locking people in? Abolish IP protectionism, then we'll get somewhere.

 

[Diurdi]

From a free-market perspective, anti-trust legislation is shit. It has shitty record as well.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

If you want corporations to have the least amount of power, you need abolish "intellectual property" in its entirety - it's a government granted monopoly over certain inventions, works etc.. The only people that benefit from this are corporations, and other trolls who wish to diminish the competition. Like for instance, your example - Microsoft. Microsoft has threatened to sue Linux for violating their patents in past; the only reason why that hasn't happened yet is because MS doesn't' see Linux as a threat because of their low market share in the desktop markets (~1%). I'm quite sure if Linux were to have a bigger share, Microsoft would launch their lawsuits against Linux, and most likely win against Linux which they'll be force to cough up a lot of money. MS has even threatened or already sued companies that are using Linux (see TomTom).

That's just one way you can undermine the monopoly power over a corporation. Why do you think hundreds of tech and non-tech companies are for SOPA/PROTECT IP Act that is currently underway in congress? Do you really think it's there to stop kids pirating music, movies and other software? Nope. It's there to stop the competition, which will only benefit them in the long run and not the end user.

 

[tttppp]

This is pretty much my opinion. The combination of onerous government regulation on the marketplace, and corporatism and lobbying which causes the government to prop up the existing major players in a market, result in greatly increasing the entry barriers, and thus it becomes more difficult for a new firm to fill the void left by an existing firm that uses its market power to the detriment of the consumer. In a true free market, cartels could not sustain themselves, and monopolies could not capitalize on that monopoly power by price gouging.

I agree. These are pretty much my thoughts.

 

[Rincewind]

If you want corporations to have the least amount of power, you need abolish "intellectual property" in its entirety - it's a government granted monopoly over certain inventions, works etc.. The only people that benefit from this are corporations, and other trolls who wish to diminish the competition. Like for instance, your example - Microsoft. Microsoft has threatened to sue Linux for violating their patents in past; the only reason why that hasn't happened yet is because MS doesn't' see Linux as a threat because of their low market share in the desktop markets (~1%). I'm quite sure if Linux were to have a bigger share, Microsoft would launch their lawsuits against Linux, and most likely win against Linux which they'll be force to cough up a lot of money. MS has even threatened or already sued companies that are using Linux (see TomTom).

That's just one way you can undermine the monopoly power over a corporation. Why do you think hundreds of tech and non-tech companies are for SOPA/PROTECT IP Act that is currently underway in congress? Do you really think it's there to stop kids pirating music, movies and other software? Nope. It's there to stop the competition, which will only benefit them in the long run and not the end user.

I think we need to reform IP law, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely. Your point on Microsoft is well taken, but on the flip side, eliminating patent protection entirely could harm competition because large existing firms could quickly appropriate innovations made by smaller or new firms.

I think going too far in either direction w/ IP law can result in stifling innovation, rather than the purported purpose of encouraging it. The trick is to tailor the legal doctrine to meet the purpose.

It is a difficult question. How do you create a legal system where a person or company that has a good idea can profit from being the innovator, but not be granted a government-issued monopoly on the market?

 

[onlyrp]

Am I a Libertarian? I would see no need for anti-trust laws in a free market.
Of course a free market does not exist,, and in the current system I suppose they are acceptable.

In a free market,corporations would likely not exist. Corporations are a construct of the state, and the laws that "govern" them are created by the state.
In a free market,, property is not a person and liability is not limited.
you can easily have partnerships and investors without incorporation.

You mention Micro$oft,, that opens another can of worms.
I believe that BOTH Patent laws and IP laws need to be readdressed,,amended and limited.
"Micro$oft" invents nothing, but profits off the works of others, by legal manipulation or outright theft. And prevents other innovation and improvement by the same means.

at least you're not one of those insane people who think IP laws should all be abolished.

 

[onlyrp]

You want to stop giant software companies from locking people in? Abolish IP protectionism, then we'll get somewhere.

abolish IP protection? From trademark all the way down to copyright? How about counterfeit? What about impersonation?

 

[Inny Binny]

You can't pretend someone else's work is your own, that's fraud. But anyone should be able to sell anything truthfully.

 

[pcosmar]

at least you're not one of those insane people who think IP laws should all be abolished.

Abolished? No. But definitely readdressed and limited. And Fair Use needs to be expanded.
Copyright and Trademark have their place even in a free market,, but it seems that legal definitions and petty litigation have done more harm than good
The pendulum needs to swing back to something near sanity.

There is a lot of good reason for spoofs like this,
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/

Oh,, and another happy Linux user here.

 

[Jingles]