Re: is free, open source software ethical?

In article 
<33479c88-3188-4005-9058-692494575637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> If you want to ``buy'' customers, and can afford it, you should be
> able to do that. You're competing with your cash base.

Ah, yes, the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

> 
> You're obviously better than that other company, because you can sell
> below cost for the next couple of years, and still make the payrolls,
> pay the leases on capital, service debts---in short, do everything
> else required to stay afloat.
> 
> It's not like you're drowning puppies, or dumping toxic waste.
> 
> Ultimately, the choice is up to the customer. It's the customer's
> behavior that they want the cheapest thing. They buy it knowing that
> they are undermining competition, which will reduce their choice in
> the future. The undercutting company will wipe out the others and then
> jack up prices. Since the consumers are willing to live with that, let
> them live with it.

In an ideal world, where most customers were farsighted enough to 
anticipate this consequence, this might be a reasonable attitude.  But 
in the real world most decisions are made on short-term interests.  Few 
people will pay 10% more now, in the hope that this will prevent 15% 
inflation down the road.  Especially since they can't even tell for sure 
that buying from the cheap guy really will put the others out of 
business.  A bird in the hand really IS better than 2 in the bush.

We would prefer that vendors compete on the merits of their products, 
not the depth of their pockets.  If a company makes really great 
gadgets, and they become rich selling those gadgets, this is deserved.  
But if they decide that they also want to corner the market on widgets, 
but they don't make very good widgets, it doesn't seem right that they 
should use all their gadget profits to undercut the other widget vendors 
and drive them out of business.

You say this is the consumers' fault -- they knowingly bought the 
inferior widgets.  But they make a reasonable economic choice at the 
time, buying something 90% as good for 85% the price.  The problem is 
that once the competitors are gone, GadgetCo can raise the prices of 
their widgets, while not improving on their quality.

In general, anti-trust laws would not be necessary at all if we could 
expect the marketplace to protect itself against these eventualities.  
And social security wouldn't be necessary if everyone saved for 
retirement.  And people who lost money to con men were just stupid, 
right?  We could just live our entire lives based on "caveat emptor", 
but we think it's better to have some watchdogs protecting us.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***