I see many people bashing Oracle/Ellison, but they are not alone in this. MS does the same thing as well. The really worrying thing is that such practices are deemed to be legal. The entire principle of Free Markets is underpinned by consumers having accurate information about the goods they are purchasing. Having licensing agreements that are expressly designed to prevent the dissemination of product-information, goes against everything that Capitalism and Free-Markets stand for.
The fact that there are no government regulations against such behavior, is precisely what leads people to think that we are living in a Corporatocracy, and not a Free Market.
I agree with where you are going but I entirely disagree with your description of Free Markets and Capitalism.
free market - an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses
There's nothing in there about consumers having accurate information. If anything, caveat emptor. Moreover, if you are a free market entrepreneur then the absolute last thing you want is fairness to your competition or fairness to your consumer. Those are costs of doing business, to be avoided if possible. Naturally, Larry is only trying to avoid them.
That's why we have regulation. That's why civilization has evolved to have government. That's why Libertaristan isn't on any maps. That's why The Fountainhead is such a misguided fantasy where entrepreneurs can do anything and it's always better and governments can do nothing and it's always worse.
Free Markets and Capitalism don't stand for anything. That's not even a criticism of them either. Civilization might stand for something although that something is a provisional something at best but then that provisional something is better than nothing.
The requirement for consumers having accurate information is a government regulation. In the United States, it's enforced by the Consumer Protection Agency. It isn't a free market requirement.
Yes, but practice has taught us that it is an important part of any functioning market.
> the absolute last thing you want is fairness to your competition or fairness to your consumer.
I completely disagree with your assertion here. I want an advantage over my competition, sure.. but I still want it to be fair. An unfair market is a fickle and unreliable one. That's not good for anyone.
Further, if my consumer walks away from the deal feeling that it was unfair then I've really done myself a disservice in the long term. It's a reason why "Goodwill and Brand Awareness" are line items in the world of corporate accounting.
> Free Markets and Capitalism don't stand for anything.
They stand for the implicit agreement that we are all created equal.
Uh, no. We are not. Both nature and nurture deal unfair cards. And markets and capitism most certainly alone do not promote solidarity. That is, in any real world scenario plaid out so far.
On the contrary, completely free markets often lead to oligopolies, monopolies and cartells.
Or is it supposed to be a bad joke in empirical economics, to start with a population with equal chances and see it tumbling into a winner takes all pyramid of distributions of wealth?
In a completely fair game we could choose not to do business with known unfair players. Real world does not work this way. As soon as there is capital surpluss, someone will get an upper hand in negotiations. The wealth allows the other party more negotiation tactics. Hence, anyone who can use the full leverage of their wealth will come on top. In the average case.
Money isn't the only route to power, of course. Politics and violence are an inseparable facet of the negotiation dynamics of our species, even if they don't affect every business deal. For example, by imposing dominion over supply trade unions can increase leverage of employees over employers, who then may under some situations use government sanctioned violence to increase their leverage - or vice versa. Etc.
I don't have a formal proof of this. It just seems to be the way the game is played.