DISQUS

I'm not totally sure what you mean by Microsoft holding 99% of "the PC market." Perhaps part of our differing interpretations is traceable to Ryan Radia's point that regulators and consumer watchdog groups have a tendency to define "markets" more and more narrowly (e.g. "the satellite TV market"):
http://techliberation.com/2008/08/07/dish-netwo...

Are you leaving out Apple entirely? Also, I was really speaking of a firm's dominance of the computer industry as a whole - the firm that everyone's talking about. In the 90s, it was indeed Microsoft, but then the internet displaced the enthusiasm for software. So, Yahoo and Amazon were the hot stuff until the bubble burst. Now, it's Google. Sure, Microsoft still sells more of its OSes and office suites than anyone else, but does anyone use MSN? And with mobile computing becoming the new thing, I wonder if Windows Mobile will be able to outshine Google's Android and Apple's iPhone.

I'm also not too certain about your assertion that Microsoft has dominated since 1983. Did they really "dominate" before Windows 3.0? And before Microsoft's dominance, IBM was supposed to be a monopoly that would last forever.

So, is it impermissible to bind my future self's actions? That is what a noncompete does. It states that I will not perform certain actions in the future. Perhaps such contracts are inherently bad for the people who sign them, but that's just a reason not to sign one - as you have decided not to.

It may be nearly physically impossible to agree not to learn or think certain things, but it is certainly not impossible to agree not to work in a certain industry. I guess I don't see the analogy between noncompetes and selling "what you learn" (though I would also point out that information can be sold, as can its withholding).

I think our real argument may lie in the principle of rectification. I doubt that you truly believe that it is unjust, and punishable by force, for me to sign an agreement stating that I will not work at a certain job in the future. You may think that such contracts are unenforceable, but that is a different debate. What I owe to the company if I break the agreement is open for discussion.

Hans,

You might be interested in Adam Thierer's post over at TechLiberation about a new summer camp that bucks the trend of overprotectiveness:
http://techliberation.com/2008/08/10/i-would-se...

I have to say, I just don't buy the notion that certain things are inalienable. If I own myself, then I must have the right to do with myself what I want - including agreeing to labor for 40, 80, or 100 hours a week at a job and including agreeing not to labor at all at a certain job. Either way, I am exercising my ownership in myself - just as I would be exercising my ownership in my iPod if I lent it to my friend, or I agreed with him not to lend it to certain other people.

Now, what the appropriate punishment is for violating a noncompete is a different question than whether the contract should be allowed in the first place. That's a question for the principle of rectification.

Tom,

I agree that if I have a contractual agreement with my ISP stating that the company will not read my data, they need to abide by it. But if they don't, it's a tort issue, not a Wiretap Act issue.

With regard to the government, I have to disagree. You tellingly write that a user has to expect that her data is "going to be read by someone handling it." That's generally true. But the government isn't handling my data! Only my ISP and the website I send the data to are! I think a better analogy than sending a postcard through the USPS would be sending a postcard (if such a thing were legal) through UPS or DHL or some other private mail service. Why is the government reading that? I'm not giving it to them - it's a purely private transaction.

So... don't sign a noncompete!

Noncompetes may be great deals for people in other sectors. Think of a CEO who works her butt off every day for years, then takes a great severance package with a noncompete that now allows her the retirement she always wanted. She should at least have the option of retiring, and not be forced to work longer, if her company gives her the option.

I fully agree that the government shouldn't ban technologies, such as DRM-circumvention technologies, but rather just ban illegal uses of them.

Ryan actually makes this point at the end of his post:

The real impediment to fair use isn’t Selectable Output Control, but the DMCA’s chilling anti-circumvention clause. Software capable of breaking DRM shouldn’t be banned, but robust DRM shouldn’t be illegal, either. Consumers will shun content that’s encumbered with intrusive DRM, and market forces will reward copy-protection schemes that balance transparency with robustness. In the ongoing battle over DRM, the best course for government is to stay out entirely.

I will be surprised if we don't see similar announcements from other carriers, with competing price structures, very soon. I'll pay for the wi-fi, if I can't illegally get cell phone reception.

Shouldn't you have used this image instead (though, admittedly, it's of a cat)?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bureaucrash/269582...

Obviously, this is a good place to make a plug for GMU Bryan Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter. Caplan discusses precisely this issue - why people vote and why they vote the way they do, given that it is not in their self-interest. Caplan contends that the gains from voting - the probability of affecting an outcome times the magnitude of that outcome - are so ridiculously low as to be easily overridden by biases such as those "warm and fuzzy" feelings you speak of.

It's also worth pointing out that the tofu bars are probably a bit above the price range of the fast food joints. While we D.C. yuppies may be able to plop down $13 for our masaman tofu, we shouldn't force our expensive tastes on others.

Courtney,

Do you think that New York's new pay toilets will meet with a better fate than Seattle's? They only charge $.25, but that may be enough of a price to keep out the abusers. Also, they will be supported by advertising. But it's still a public-private partnership with a lot of government control and responsibility.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-...

Perhaps if the ads were better-targeted, they would work better. See Wayne Crews' and Ryan Radia's C:\Spin:
http://cei.org/node/20652

Also, Google charges per click. If your website isn't effective at generating business when people see it, that's really not Google's fault; it's yours.

You all make excellent points. Fran, I was summarizing the resiliency strategy as the government doing nothing about warming, though perhaps that's not wholly accurate.

My colleague Sam Glaser just pointed out that it may have been fitting to include a quote from when the deal was announced, way back in the Dark Ages of June 12.

At the time, the Google-Yahoo deal didn’t seem like… well, like such a big deal. Google and Yahoo agreed to hold the deal up, but largely so that Yahoo could back out if Microsoft changed its mind. No one thought that it even needed approval. It’s not a merger, after all.

Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang said, “We believe, given that it’s a commercial agreement, there’s not formal regulatory approval. We agreed with the Department of Justice on a voluntary basis to have them review this deal.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9967369-7.html

How times have changed.

No, it was posted by a Google user who was searching for information about Judaism and got a strange advertisement as a result.

Speedmaster is right. It's not really anti-democracy, just anti-privacy - and probably enables anti-liberty policies. Unfortunately, in the U.S. today, "democracy" has become a synonym for "good" - anything good is democratic and anything democratic is good.

What about the fourth option (which is the one we actually have):

Two layers of regulation. In the first level, you have a single regulator with a monopoly on regulation (a monopoly it actually sometimes uses to trump state regulations with the Dormant Commerce Clause). In the second level, you have the multiple, competing regulators.

The fourth option is obviously worse than #3, because it adds an additional layer of federal regulation to the states'. But it is also worse than #2, because the states' regulations are still in addition to the feds'. So, if Summers meant to suggest that we move from #4 to #2, this may actually be a good option.