logo

Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Open Source

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.





Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


Letter to MacBreak's Scott Bourne about Open Source and the Free Market

Dear Mr. Bourne,

I've been enjoying your commentary on various Twit network podcasts for a while now. On the recent MacBreak Weekly, I found your exchange with Merlin Mann about open source interesting. I detect a whiff of libertarianism in your remark about the force of the state being used to enforce taxes--which I appreciate, as I'm a libertarian myself. I'm also a patent attorney and have written extensively about why patent and copyright law are anti-free market and unlibertarian (my reasons may be found at The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide, available at http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#IP).

You are right, in a way, that the free market will come into play here--but the power of patent and copyright holders is not a free market power. It is an artificial and unjust monopoly given to them by the state, which they then use in the courts to get the force of the state (as with tax collection) to extort money from third parties. So, given this monopoly power, yes, the free market will temper somewhat how much they can extort from people, but still, it's unjust and greatly distorts the market. It also leads to hostility against the free market when people wrongly identify this state monopoly granting practice as part of the free market.

That said, I agree with you that there is no "religious" reason for a given individual or firm to use open source over non-open -- whatever works better and is the better deal for you, of course. And in fact the "open source" model is not without problems: it also relies on copyright, and has insidious aspects -- that's one reason I, as an anti-copyright type, prefer public domain or creative commons attribution only instead of the share-alike/GNU type model (which I explain in Copyright is very sticky!, Eben Moglen and Leftist Opposition to Intellectual Property, and Leftist Attacks on the Google Book Settlement).


   

Most Recent Comments

Microsoft gets patent for Windows shutdown This wouild seem to fail the non-obvious test. I mean, isn't the natural thing to shut down a

NBC--Comcast combo will screw the public Absolutely not, you were, as I document below. His response to this was civil too. Nobody

NBC--Comcast combo will screw the public Bill Stepp writes: I note that Nobody Nowhere was [insult deleted]; [threat deleted]. None of the

NBC--Comcast combo will screw the public I note that Nobody Nowhere was rude in his comments to Anonymous; why he isn't banned is a

Microsoft gets patent for Windows shutdown If only Microsoft would work on patenting technology that would make Windows shut down in, say, 5

NBC--Comcast combo will screw the public It's nice to see that commenting has picked up again after a long lull of nearly zero activity at

NBC--Comcast combo will screw the public Comcast is such a huge company. They can buy anything that they want. I know that they are trying

Music without copyright Metallica has been making so much money over years and they still do. This band has been around for

NYTimes finds more IP news but doesn't report its consumer cost Hey there, thank you for the heads up, will spread the word. Maplin onsale

Comment Posting Announcement Awesome stuff, loved the tricky spam buster! Medela