Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.
Actually these monopolies are enforced by the state via IP laws. Without IP laws any upstart could reverse engineer the protocols and provide an implementation with less limitations. But of course free market enthusiasts like to ignore that part and only rant against the government when it protects consumers from companies.
There are a huge number of free market types who are against IP laws and they're a big part of computing culture. Names like the FSF [0] spring to mind. A market can't expose a fraction of its potential if people are banned from competing because someone else got there first. The only reason the software world did so well was because the FSF managed that inspired hack of the copyright system known as the GPL that freed up the market, in fact.
Yes, if there were no IP anyone could cheaply make a single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASIC to provide the alternative 4K-capable video hardware implementation. /s
Anyone? No, probably not. Some enterprising company in Shenzhen, who would sell the thing for $.25 a piece due to fierce competition driving prices down to cost of materials? Now that's more likely.
Single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASICs aren't really required to achieve this. Although there is higher latency this can and has been done on FPGAs at a company I worked for which designed and built custom AVOD systems for private jets and helicopters.
One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.
I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.
The monopoly here is HDMI LA, who provides the required licenses.
> HDMI® Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA) is the agent appointed by the HDMI Forum to license Version 2.1b of the HDMI Specification and is the agent appointed by the HDMI Founders to license earlier HDMI Specifications.
Mostly I think the person who mentioned that this is free markets working as free markets is largely right. You can't defend free markets on the basis that property rights are enforced by the state, and thus somehow changing the free market outcome.
I also think critizising intellectual property on grounds of granting a monopoly is muddling the language. If I write a novel I have exclusive rights to the novel. But I am not the only supplier of mediocre novels. I don't have a monopoly in a relevant market.
None of this contradicts the point that IP and patent rights are in desperate need of reform, or that they can play a central role in abusing a monopoly position (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard).
Edit: Maybe my post was unclear: I would agree that IP should be abolished. But this is not a position I have seen classical market liberals and other free market advocates take. Instead, they tend to favor strengthening all forms of property rights. If I am wrong on this point, I'd be happy to read some examples.
I don't think we disagree, I would just like to add that this subtlety about "monopoly" depends on the (subjective) existence of substitute goods. Maybe as a consumer I just want any old book to read and so an individual author has no market control. On the other hand you can imagine, say, a technology that's practically or actually unavoidable as an input for a particular business (suppose HDMI had no viable alternative), then the IP holder could extract super-normal profit and make the economy less efficient.
Monopolies form easily? That's funny, you should try and start one, seems quite profitable.
Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.
IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies without IP laws. IP laws are the ultimate king maker and exclusively exist to perpetuate profits of the IP owner.
If your proposition of regulation is to disband the patent offices and repeal the copyright act, my sincere apologies.
The truth is, if you are in the position to make the step towards becoming a monopolist especially in a new market it is not impossible to do so (and by the rules it should be).
Getting to that position isn't easy tho.
But from a consumer standpoint the only thing that matters is if you have monopolists or not — we don't care how hard it was for them to become one other than it might change the number of monopolists that force their crop down our throats.
Without imaginary property, AMD would have signed a similar contract - they would rather focus on their own products rather than reverse engineering the HDMI standards to create their own implementation. At which point AMD would be in the same position, unable to reverse engineer HDMI or adopt solutions from other companies who did.
Imaginary property laws most certainly encourage and facilitate monopolies and collusion, but they are not necessary to the dynamic. Such laws are essentially just the norms of business that companies would be insisting on from other businesses anyway, for which it's much more lucrative to assent and go along with rather than attempt to defect and go against them.
Another example of this effect is the DMCA - the tech giants aren't merely following its process verbatim, but rather have used it as basis for their own takedown processes with electively expanded scope - eg why we see takedown notices pertaining to "circumvention" code, or the complete unaccountability of Content ID. Google and Microsoft aren't significantly hurting themselves by extralegally shutting down a tiny contingent of their customers, meanwhile the goodwill they garner from other corporations (and possible legal expenses they save) is immense. The loser is of course individual freedom.
The invisible hand of the free market will come and fix all the things! /s
If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others.
Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good.
You're conflating several schools of thought. Utilitarianism, which appears to be your basis for defining ethical behavior, underlies this reasoning behind compulsory government action.
This line of thinking is often repeated in election cycles and mindless online discussions, with mantras like "We justify doing something heinous because it serves 'American Interests'" or "We'll coercively tax one group and redistribute funds to another because they'll do something dubiously for the 'greater good'".
However, Utilitarianism is not a foundational principle of libertarian ideology. In fact, libertarianism often refutes and rejects it as applied to governments. It doesn't prioritize egalitarianism or rely on public opinion when defining citizens' rights.
The argument for a free market unencumbered by protectionist policies isn't about the greater good; rather, it's an argument for an ethical government grounded in first principles.
The "greater good" argument tends to crumble under close examination and logical scrutiny. Its claims on reason collapse as soon as you scrutinize them more deeply.
Notably, Utilitarianism has been the basis for nearly all modern-day dictatorships, which rely on a monopoly of violence to enforce the "greater good".
It's possible to support free markets while still caring for others – this is called altruism. It's similar to utilitarianism but without coercion and fallacies.
I studied philosophy and ethics so you can safely assume I know my definitions. But that does not matter, as you apparently failed to read what I wrote.
Could you please paraphrase my "greater good argument" that crumbles under close examination? A examination you somehow failed to provide? Maybe you hoped people are too impressed by you use of words to recognize that you even failed to provide an argument against an strawman you created?
No offense, but the way you write makes you sound like a 15 year old teenager that figured out using smart words makes you sound smart, without any deeper understanding of or regard for the concepts at hand or the arguments made. If you want to show some argument is wrong you can't just simply claim it is, you need to demonstrate it - ideally using the very logic and examination, you seem to so highly value.
My original post was intended to clarify why I believe Libertarian ideology is distinct from and incompatible with Utilitarianism, particularly since in your response, you conflated the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology. This is quite surprising given your claim to have "studied philosophy and ethics".
To address this misunderstanding, let me break down the logical fallacies I alluded to earlier:
- The "tyranny of the majority" problem: Since happiness is determined by the number of individuals, a simple majority can impose its will on the minority, potentially denying them their rights or freedoms.
- The "moral arithmetic" fallacy: This assumes that individual well-being can be measured and added up like numbers in an equation, ignoring the complexities of human experience and the difficulties of making such calculations.
- The "majority rules" fallacy: This implies that whatever the majority wants is automatically just or right, without considering the potential for mob rule, manipulation, or coercion.
- The "ignore individual rights" fallacy: By prioritizing the greater good over individual interests, Utilitarianism may lead to the trampling of human rights and dignity.
No offense, but it's worth noting that a more nuanced understanding of philosophy and ethics might be beneficial for more accurate representations of complex concepts.