Like any monopoly, or emerging monopoly, can Apple’s ‘monopoly’ be maintained in the face of a distributed, open system that encourages development, offering the system itself, and the tools to develop on it for free? Much is made of ‘fragmentation’: The monolith of MacOS on Mac Hardware vs the varieties of PC competitors, and the (increasingly fragmenting) monolith of the iPhone OS and hardware vs the exploding variety of Android devices. The prevailing opinion is that a monolith has advantages that outnumber the disadvantages, but I think they tend to resemble the advantages/vulnerabilities of a monopoly. The competing non-monolithic systems are more open and can be quicker to innovate on both the hardware and software side. Thus we see the Android OS, Market, and devices beginning to surpass what Apple is providing. The advantages the iPhone held, with the exception of the number of apps in their Store, has melted away in the past few months. The iPad never held these advantages, with the exception of the Store. There were already tablets and similar devices that exceeded the specs of the iPad selling for less money prior to the release of the iPad. Additionally, there are other tablets and iPad competitors nearing release. Android-based tablets are poised to deliver the exact same experiences the iPad offers for much less money. BTW, you can buy a non-3G iPad and a Sprint 3G/4G 5-device wifi hotspot (the Overdrive) for $99, getting faster, unlimited internet in 4G areas than you can get with the 3G iPad, all for less money. There’s almost no reason at all to buy a 3G enabled iPad. Of course, that means any tablet with wifi can easily be on the same ‘internet’ footing as an iPad with 3G, if not better footing given the Sprint 4G speeds.

Like any monopoly, or emerging monopoly, can it be maintained in the face of a distributed, open system that encourages development, offering the system itself, and the tools to develop for free? Much is made of ‘fragmentation’: The monolith of MacOS on Mac Hardware vs the varieties of PC competitors, and the (increasingly fragmenting) monolith of the iPhone OS and hardware vs the exploding variety of Android devices. The prevailing opinion is that a monolith has advantages that outnumber the disadvantages, but I think they tend to resemble the advantages/vulnerabilities of a monopoly. The competing non-monolithic systems are more open and can be quicker to innovate on both the hardware and software side. Thus we see the Android OS, Market, and devices beginning to surpass what Apple is providing. The advantages the iPhone held, with the exception of the number of apps in their Store, has melted away in the past few months. The iPad never held these advantages, with the exception of the Store. There were already tablets and similar devices that exceeded the specs of the iPad selling for less money prior to the release of the iPad. Additionally, there are other tablets and iPad competitors nearing release. Android-based tablets are poised to deliver the exact same experiences the iPad offers for much less money. (BTW, you can buy a non-3G iPad and a Sprint 3G/4G wifi hotspot device, getting faster internet in 4G areas than you can get with the 3G iPad for less money! It is a

I’m not an Android fanatic. I’d go back to a WinMo phone if they get their act together and make a better phone than the competition. I’m more familiar with .NET programming than I am C++/Android Java, so I’d rather develop for WinMo phones as well. But right now, the Droid simply is the best phone for me. Due to ATT coverage, the iPhone wasn’t an option. I almost didn’t buy the Droid due to iPhone fanatics trashing the Droid in YouTube reviews, but somehow the reviews didn’t match the in-store experiences I had, and now I’m extremely glad I bought it.

The truth is that you can patent just about anything that is ‘unique’. Apple just got the patent on the ‘design’ of the iPhone. (I thought Dial had that design sewn up long ago.) It appears that every aspect of these devices must be patented, not just to create a ‘monopoly’ on the design, UI, etc., but also to defend oneself from companies like Apple. If you create a panoramic UI for a phone, you better patent it. Oops, too late. MS just patented that. But they have to, or then Apple will add that to their iPhone OS, patent it, and sue you. So now companies have to engage in defensive patenting. LIke TRW’s R-C circuit patent, MS may never sue anyone for ‘infringing’ on their panoramic UI patent. But now it is a weapon they can use against enemies like Apple who may attempt to sue because, for example, the Zune does something the iPod already does. Then MS lawyers can counter-sue on some other patent they own, and finally licensing rights are quietly exchanged to end the battle. One thing these examples have in common is that the ‘innovations’ in question were not first created by the respective companies. They were only the first to apply to the US PO. So is there anything about patents as currently implemented that are compatible with Free-Market Enterprise?

Enforcement of a right is not a primary aspect of that right. Many people confuse this regarding rights.

If everyone behaved ethically there would be no need for enforcement and the lack of enforcement wouldn’t mean there were no rights. I don’t remember enforcement of any tangible property rights in Galt’s Gulch either. Does this mean Galts Gulch was a communist utopia?

To modify your iPod or iPhone to be more flexible and useful is called “jailbreaking” by the people who do it. How appropriate.

I’m told that in China (where else) there are iPod Touch imitation products which function similarly but which are far more open to loading and sharing content. I assume that very few people in China feel the need to pay Apple $1 for every song and $20 for every movie (or whatever iTunes charges). The way that foreigners describe it to me, the USA is in danger of becoming a technological backwater because of this commitment to abstract and unenforceable “property” law.

I’m familiar with Rand’s position on IP. I did not comment on that. It was not my intent, in writing my response, to make consideration of the original intent of the author, but rather to analyse what we can know of Gult’s Gulch from a purely literalist perspective. Rand makes no mention whatsoever, if I recall correctly, of IP being enforced in Gult’s Gulch. One can debate whether it’s good or whether it’s bad that she makes no mention of this, but it’s not my intent currently to engage in such a discussion.

I do not know what you mean by your claim that anarchists are trying to rewrite Atlas. The only mention of anyone rewriting it that I know anything about is the attempts of various people to write it into a movie script. Last I heard, attempts to turn the book into a movie have been suspended again.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

This “puritanism” line of yours is typical of you public atheists as well. Totally fabricated to fit your bias. How about you give that a rest, too?

There’s only a handful of “heresies”, and you know them. Don’t steal, assault or murder. And there’s nothing to laugh about regarding what your big brother in D.C. has done since all you poor little sheep got so rattled by 9/11. That’s always the only subject with us, because you should know better, quisling.

I have to side with Silas on this one. The whole argument is: Should IP be considered property? Only after we have determined what should be considered property should we “let the market decide”. When SK, in answer to Silas’ question, says that we should just let the market figure it out, that raises the question: *which* market? The market with IP, or the market without? SK assumes the market without IP, which implicitly assume that IP should not be considered property. This may not be a circular argument, strictly speaking, but it is at least a form of the begging the question fallacy.

“That is a frivolous, fundamentally wrong-headed word to use, Russ. It’s no wonder you turned back to statism.”

You need to grow a sense of humor. This is the kind of anarcho-puritanism I expect from you, though. It seems your only source of joy is rooting out heresies.

If the “property right” is unjust, then it is no right at all. It is a state-granted privilege. And, just like mercantilism, we can see the effects of IP, who benefits and who is harmed, in its market distortions. I see no circularity.

Magnus is right though. I won’t bother checking back here, knowing the insulting comments I’ll get from you, if you bother to respond.

“Russ: “shorthand way of saying”

I see. Kind of like “Fairyland”. (haha)”

Nope. Just a catchy shorthand. I have used the term “Ancapistan” for years, since the time when I was an anarcho-capitalist myself, and used to hang out on anti-state.com.

There is something wrong with Silas Barta. Why would anyone keep engaging idiots over and over, week after week, year after year?

Go and find something else to do Silas Barta.