This feels like a mini-troll Q from you, given the audience who follows you, and your personal history. I of course answered "hell no". Especially since the cost of R&D for many of our innovative companies is borne by the taxpayer already through public funding!
@dneary I don't intend it as a troll. We're coming out of a big antitrust suit announcement last week in the tech industry and I'm interested in the general opinion.
I understand. From my perspective, there is so much public support for foundational R&D that is then commercialized and monetized by private industry in this world, that we need more regulation of monopolies, not less. The investors make out OK.
So, I think this is the consensus position in Silicon Valley. Even beyond traditional IP protections like patents, copyright and trademark, innovative companies have something like an obligation to take aggressive action to dominate new markets. They can and should throw hundreds of millions of VC dollars into getting and keeping 75% or more market share.
That's what the patent system is supposed to provide: a (temporary [0]) monopoly to reward innovators. I think the patent system mostly works, though perhaps patents are being granted for trivial innovations in software.
There are other ways to fund innovation of course, but there are advantages to the model of researchers working at their own risk, with the possibility of lucrative rewards for success.
[0] Permanent monopolies are contrary to the public interest.
I think I like some traits of the patent sytem, as mentioned. Temporary protection and monopoly for open documentation so it becomes everyones in the end.
I see how big research funding is needed in some fields, and how you need this. And then I see some bs pharma stuff, changing recipe mildly to evade it.
I see mRNA and how utterly everything failed for 20 years, only covid giving them the chance to prove themselves. To now read Pfizer everywhere instead of Biontech.
I went somewhat disagree because you can interpret requires two different ways. Requires as in you couldn't have a successful innovative tech company without a monopoly I don't agree with. Requires as in investors will not invest without a monopoly or duopoly as a condition seems to be very true in a lot of cases.
Strongly disagree at least in the USA context as temporary monopolies like patents are not the sole incentive out there. Tax expenditures like the Increasing Research Credit, among others, also serve as incentives. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/41
No. It would be better if you could patent something and everyone could use your patent giving you some revenue but not having a monopoly #EvanPoll #poll
So, I think this is the consensus position in Silicon Valley. Even beyond traditional IP protections like patents, copyright and trademark, innovative companies have something like an obligation to take aggressive action to dominate new markets. They can and should throw hundreds of millions of VC dollars into getting and keeping 75% or more market share.
It would be dishonest to say that this economic structure hasn't brought us a lot of value as a society. The companies who have followed this path have created a lot of technology products that have changed our lives.
And there is a real network effect in having market dominant products. We benefit because other people use the product and improve it with their data, and we benefit because third-party vendors build on top of that single platform.
In this framework, competition, to the extent that it matters, happens *between* markets -- like the mobile operating system competing with the social network, or the rideshare app competing with the job-finding site.
I think the problem with this framework is that we as a society don't get to enjoy the fruits of competitive markets: lower prices, better features, more variety, more resilience. Not to mention the ugly, corrosive model of a single corporate entity dominating a particular aspect of our life. I think it may make us complacent about unfair domination in other parts of our lives.
what you seem to be describing is some of the limited public benefit of large corporate bodies that monopolise what might have been a public good. Just because such monopolies still share characteristics of public good, such as shared discovery, economies of scale, capacity to do research that otherwise is hard to fund, doen’t make those structures any more attractive to me. It makes me wonder what more we could have had if we had structured them as publicly controlled and accountable.
Could technology companies start and grow if a 75% market share was an unattainable goal? If government agencies would intervene to stop market dominance and especially misuse of that dominance?
I think they could. I think financial systems would adjust, and I think innovation would continue.
So, I somewhat disagree. I'm willing to concede the advantages of the current system, but I think the price is too high, and I think the alternatives are feasible and preferable.
Just going to throw out the idea here that competition isn't innately good or virtuous and it generally doesn't increase quality, and it certainly doesn't create fairness. It's a lie capitalism sells everyone to obscure the fact that capitalist competition always creates a monopolist winner.
you could also phrase this as: "other people and third-party vendors start to depend on these products" and I'd add that these products directly and indirectly create a lot of jobs that are ultimately tied to a single point of failure. At some point this creates a too big (important) to fail situation where the monopolist's leadership can act against the interests of the society (accumulate undue wealth, oppress their workforce, patronize customers) without having to fear real consequences
The crucial observation here is that the same benefits can be gained from *interoperability*. If we had a universal open standard for smartphone apps, for instance, everyone could have access to every app, regardless of their device. Instead we have a duopoly and two separate universes of apps..
I think there’s a window between a company entrenching itself and beginning to squeeze where it makes a lot of economic sense. Looking at Apple, Netflix, Google, etc. it seems to be around 10–15 years.
The squeezing does, inevitably, start. You know, once they’re so big that even large governments can’t do much about it, or have been bought out so they don’t want to.
So I think the question is, is it worth it to trade short-term value for long-term feudalism?
"The companies who have followed this path have created a lot of technology products that have changed our lives." Absolutely, 110% "this economic structure hasn't brought us a lot of value as a society." I'm don't think this part follows from the evidence. I see no reason to doubt that the counter factual wouldn't have also changed our lives and brought value to society. If market dominance was prevented through some mechanism, then the best investment would still be the best investment!
But it's the network effect which enables the monopoly, not the reverse. And such lopsided markets tend to make it harder rather than easier for better products to appear
@monnier right, but network effects benefit users. It's helpful to me that so many people have Facebook accounts. I'm very likely to find people I know there. Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Probably not, or I wouldn't be here.
Dave Neary
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Dave Neary • • •Dave Neary
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Dave Neary • • •@dneary I gave my reasoning here:
https://cosocial.ca/@evan/112948806709572368
Evan Prodromou
2024-08-12 11:26:56
M. Grégoire
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •That's what the patent system is supposed to provide: a (temporary [0]) monopoly to reward innovators. I think the patent system mostly works, though perhaps patents are being granted for trivial innovations in software.
There are other ways to fund innovation of course, but there are advantages to the model of researchers working at their own risk, with the possibility of lucrative rewards for success.
[0] Permanent monopolies are contrary to the public interest.
#patents
…might work for coffee…
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I am really torn.
I think I like some traits of the patent sytem, as mentioned. Temporary protection and monopoly for open documentation so it becomes everyones in the end.
I see how big research funding is needed in some fields, and how you need this. And then I see some bs pharma stuff, changing recipe mildly to evade it.
I see mRNA and how utterly everything failed for 20 years, only covid giving them the chance to prove themselves.
To now read Pfizer everywhere instead of Biontech.
Chris Jolly Holcomb
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Stephen Michael Kellat
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •26 U.S. Code § 41 - Credit for increasing research activities
Office of the Law Revision Counsel (LII / Legal Information Institute)bufalo1973
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •#EvanPoll #poll
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Stephen Mather
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Stephen Mather • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Could technology companies start and grow if a 75% market share was an unattainable goal? If government agencies would intervene to stop market dominance and especially misuse of that dominance?
I think they could. I think financial systems would adjust, and I think innovation would continue.
And I think our society would be better.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •This question came out of the recent antitrust ruling against Google's search dominance.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/05/nx-s1-5064624/google-justice-department-antitrust-search
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •John Francis
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •there's nothing wrong with achieving and maintaining 75% market share on merit.
It just never occurs.
If you can return an honest 10% in dividends, there will be investors.
Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Brar Piening
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •At some point this creates a too big (important) to fail situation where the monopolist's leadership can act against the interests of the society (accumulate undue wealth, oppress their workforce, patronize customers) without having to fear real consequences
Introscopia
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •If we had a universal open standard for smartphone apps, for instance, everyone could have access to every app, regardless of their device. Instead we have a duopoly and two separate universes of apps..
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Introscopia • • •@Introscopia https://cosocial.ca/@evan/112948878062119852
Evan Prodromou
2024-08-12 11:45:05
samir, malformed update
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I think there’s a window between a company entrenching itself and beginning to squeeze where it makes a lot of economic sense. Looking at Apple, Netflix, Google, etc. it seems to be around 10–15 years.
The squeezing does, inevitably, start. You know, once they’re so big that even large governments can’t do much about it, or have been bought out so they don’t want to.
So I think the question is, is it worth it to trade short-term value for long-term feudalism?
rndeon
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Absolutely, 110%
"this economic structure hasn't brought us a lot of value as a society."
I'm don't think this part follows from the evidence. I see no reason to doubt that the counter factual wouldn't have also changed our lives and brought value to society. If market dominance was prevented through some mechanism, then the best investment would still be the best investment!
Denis Faivre
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
systematic decline in quality of online platforms over time driven by greed
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Evan Prodromou
in reply to Denis Faivre • • •DO NOT EXPLAIN ENSHITTIFICATION TO ME↱
donotreply.cardsStefan Monnier
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Stefan Monnier • • •Stefan Monnier
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Stefan Monnier • • •