Category: Anti-trust

Do no harm?

Mere “harm” cannot be the nebulous standard by which we invoke the necessity of state intervention. If five people apply for a job then the four that did not get the job are arguably harmed, so, should the state step in and penalize the person who got the job by making him or her share it with the others? When two sports teams play each other is not the losing team “harmed”? Upset fans, potential decreased ticket sales, lower potential ad revenue – all these things constitute types of harm, yet no one is (yet) screaming for the state to step in.

Not Neutrality

“Net neutrality” certainly sounds appealing, doesn’t it? Who could possibly be against “neutrality” given its ability to evoke an emotional tie to equality, fairness, impartiality and egalitarianism? Only someone who is sufficiently ethically consistent that they will aver the use of aggression in all situations, rather than merely when popular opinion provides a safe harbor […]

May 19 / 2014

Think Different, Think Free

It is a peculiar characteristic of US anti-trust law (Sherman Anti-Trust Act) that competition itself can be characterized as “anti-competitive”. The recent e-book price-fixing case against Apple (in which Apple was ruled against on July 10) is a prime example. The case is rather “weedy” so I will provide a pared down synopsis, however for […]

%d bloggers like this: