[PREV - SYSTEM_ERROR_BORED_SEATS]    [TOP]

SYSTEM_ERROR_IN_ANTI_WE_TRUST

                                             December 16, 2022
                                             March    18, 2023

About "System Error" (2021):
                                          SYSTEM_ERROR

The third component of their "An Agenda":

   "The third component is an assertive effort to
   constrain the marker dominance of the major tech
   companies.  This means cracking down on
   monopolisitic behavior and restricting
   anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions.  Most
   countries are already following the European
   Union's lead on this front, and US antitrust
   enforcement activities are finally under way."

If so, "Hallelujah" but there's a remarkably
consistent patterns of any attempt at fixing
any problem to fizzle out half-way there.

The authors hold out hope... of an odd sort:

   "...  the history of antitrust regulation in
   high tech shows that it need not be necessary
   to break up the big players to achieve
   results.  Rather, the simple threat of
   stronger antiturst action would help rein in
   some of their more extreme anti-competitive
   practices, allowing competitors to emerge."

I puzzle over why anyone would have the warm fuzzies
about that phenomena.  Companies toe the line if
someone in power hits them with a little of the
good old legal harassment, even if they don't
have a case that can win in court?

That sounds like an axe that can swing in
a lot of directions, and if it hit a target
you liked, it wouldn't seem so benign.


Circa page 257, there's a (mildly silly) historical
review of Microsoft vs. antitrust... here's the closing
remarks:

   "... arguments have been made that Microsoft's
   worries about further antitrust actions softened
   its competitive stance in the marketplace more
   broadly, allowing new companies such as Google to
   emerge as formidable players."

Myself, I've never heard this one before.

Microsoft in the late 90s seemed to
be struggling with general                  Microsoft had to abandon
incompetence after being totally            it's own attempt at a
blind-sided by the rapidly expanding        proprietary network, then
adoption of the internet.  Google           stuggled to build a better
(or it's predecessors, Yahoo and            web browser than than
Altavista) didn't particularly need         Netscape (as I remember it,
Microsoft to play nice with them,           they bought one) and
because Microsoft didn't show any           stuggled to build a better
signs of understanding they were a          web server than Apache (and
threat.                                     failed), and was very late
                                            in coming up with a search
                                            engine (again, as I
                                            remember it, they bought one).

                                            Competing with yahoo mail
                                            and/or gmail seemed to beyond
                                            them, because they were stuck
                                            with the desktop software
                                            model of Office.



A historical bit I'd forgotten that's definitely on-point:

    "Surprisingly to many at the time, in 1997
    Microsoft invested $150 million in its rival
    Apple, which would otherwise run out of cash
    within months.  Many observers have speculated
    that the real reason for that investment was to
    temper the claims of Microsoft's market
    monopoly.  As history would prove, Apple would
    not only survive but in 2010 would become a more
    valuable company than Microsoft."

Similarly-- really and truly similarly, unlike the authors
occasionally sloppy uses of that transition-- many, myself
included, speculate that Google supports Mozilla so that
they won't have an embarrassing browser monopoly.

This is a fact of the present day scene, but it doesn't
strike me as anything to feel good about: if a major open
source project is stuggling by with this kind of lifeline
tossed to them as anti-trust insurance, it would indicate
at the very least that their independence is severely
compromised.

Some of us continue to use Firefox to help defend the world
against a monoculture of Google's Chromium... but is
that really working?  If Mozilla is just Google wearing
a false beard, what's the point?



Anyway: something feels weird about this apology for
antitrust flops-- it's important to rattle their cages so
they'll kick some bones to the opposition?  We could, you
know, *require* them to fund the opposition.  Tax them
heavy, and redistribute the funds to worthy causes,
including their competitors.


    I am thinking: the moderate variety of
    fascist *likes* the idea of pressuring
    companies to do stuff without actually
    having to compel them to do it--

    They get to maintain control and dodge
    some of the responsibility.

          It reminds me of the good old days
          of TV networks broadcasting in
          "voluntary compliance" with FCC regs.








--------
[NEXT - SYSTEM_ERROR_DEMOCRITICAL]