"Making your product free does not make it impossible to compete with you." And the evidence the writer cites is third party Twitter clients. Um, right.
Now, the quoted statement started out as a dismissal of Gruber's remark that it's hypocritical to accept Google's anticompetitive dumping but complain about Microsoft et al using patents. A more intellectually honest approach would be to say BOTH are wrong. I could accept that.
Well, I'm not making a moral argument. I did imply that it was "a slightly shady business practice". Clearly, Google is using money from its search business to fund OS development, and to undercut competitors. I do have a bit of a problem with that.
But I don't think it's as problematic as using patents to go after your competition. Like I said, offering something for free makes it harder to compete with you, but not impossible. Lots of companies compete with free alternatives. Twitter clearly isn't the only example. Desktop operating systems, word processors, text editors, pick whichever example you prefer.
Owning the right patents, on the other hand, can make it impossible for others to compete with you (e.g. what's happening to HTC right now).
There is nothing anti-competitive in distributing something at marginal cost, when expected revenues that fit into a proven and habitual business model are elsewhere.
Comments
"Making your product free does not make it impossible to compete with you." And the evidence the writer cites is third party Twitter clients. Um, right.
Now, the quoted statement started out as a dismissal of Gruber's remark that it's hypocritical to accept Google's anticompetitive dumping but complain about Microsoft et al using patents. A more intellectually honest approach would be to say BOTH are wrong. I could accept that.
Well, I'm not making a moral argument. I did imply that it was "a slightly shady business practice". Clearly, Google is using money from its search business to fund OS development, and to undercut competitors. I do have a bit of a problem with that.
But I don't think it's as problematic as using patents to go after your competition. Like I said, offering something for free makes it harder to compete with you, but not impossible. Lots of companies compete with free alternatives. Twitter clearly isn't the only example. Desktop operating systems, word processors, text editors, pick whichever example you prefer.
Owning the right patents, on the other hand, can make it impossible for others to compete with you (e.g. what's happening to HTC right now).
I could not.
There is nothing anti-competitive in distributing something at marginal cost, when expected revenues that fit into a proven and habitual business model are elsewhere.