Replies

N3WBI3 stated:"Sorry guy; Capitalism, by definition, does not compel you to sell your private property. You can, so long as you choose to sell your private property but you may also give it away and still be a capitalist (because its *your* private property), you may also keep it to yourself (because its *your* private property).

"
Halfmanhalamazing stated: "Capitalism isn't only about money. It's about economic freedom. Source code is capital, and if one wishes to give away their code by their own free will that is within *THE VERY DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM*. It wasn't forced. They made that decision because it fit their business model the best according to their goals."

Golden Eagle stated: "It's not private property when you give it away for free, and private ownership is the basis of capitalism. The rest is just you spinning and distorting like usual.

"
MY COMMENTS: Very interesting comments. However let me give you some historical facts to factor into your conversation.

At one time IBM did not sell their equipment, they only rented it. They were forced to sell it by the government(around 1956). They proceeded to give systems engineering support and software to run the equipment for free. They were forced by the government to charge for both.(beginning June 23 1969)

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products. Whether and how long it is allowed and who will be allowed to do it is determined by politics.

For the sake of competition, politics trumps capitalism. Without competition monopolistic practices set in and progress and the consumer suffer. Look at banking consolidations and the accompanying 30% interest rates.

Just a couple of things to think about. Sorry I can't stick around.

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products.

Not always. What you're talking about is monopolistic competition performed by a company with a near monopolistic position in the market, specifically in this case dumping (putting out products below cost to harm competitors).

Linux is an example of growing towards an efficiency monopoly, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products. Whether and how long it is allowed and who will be allowed to do it is determined by politics.

I will point out that giving something away and opensource are two totally different issues. MS gives away Internet Explorer, yet IE is not open source. FreeWare has been around forever yet mush of it is not OpenSource.

Microsoft gives away IE to anyone who follows the licensing conditions, same as Linux. Neither is anti-capitalisitc for doing so.

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products. Whether and how long it is allowed and who will be allowed to do it is determined by politics.

Great post, welcome to the discussion. And so far, the DNC is clearly on the side of 'open source'. Not only do all of their systems run on open source software, Howard Dean even refers to his campaign methods as "open source politics".

^^^^^^^^^^^Giving products away is anticompetitive^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not necessarily. In your example it clearly is. IBM has many resources at it's disposal that most others probably wouldn't have. In the OS space, absolutely not. There have been quite a few OS competitors to windows to sprout their heads up and have been squashed by microsoft through various means none of which involve a better product.

Apple/macOS is the only which has managed to stick around.

Giving away your software for free has been the only way to enter the market. All other roads have been blocked.

When it is the only way, it is by definition not anti-competitive. It was the only way to be competitive.

Ultimately Microsoft brought this upon themselves.