A long time ago in a distant blog, I had a short series of posts where each one addressed a single common (and flawed) argument. I’d like to try that same thing on The Source from time to time, so here is the first “Fatal Flaw” – I welcome your comments and suggestions!
The Premise
Example: “Moonlight/Silverlight will force Adobe to step up its game, and that competition benefits everyone”
Example: “Mono/.NET will force Java to step up its game, and that competition benefits everyone”
The argument here is supporting Mono/Moonlight/Microsoft is at least indirectly beneficial — if not directly so — because competition benefits everyone.
The Problem
Competition comes in more than one form: there is co-operative competition through “peaceful exchange and without violating other people” and there is destructive competition, where the “success of one group is dependent on the failure of another.”
Not only is this obvious when thought about, but it also puts to the rest any notion that competition, in and of itself, is beneficial. Competition may be beneficial, directly or indirectly; or it may be harmful.
As a brief aside, this uncritical oversimplified praise of “competition” runs parallel to the unthinking fetishization of “Open Source” – a critical mistake that misses the point by misunderstanding the meaning behind the terms.
The real question, then, becomes something more relevant: is Microsoft-style competition destructive or co-operative?
The Payoff
Good thing we have trial transcripts, sworn testimony, public statements of record, and piles of other documentation to help us answer that question!
When Microsoft talks about “killing” and “fucking burying” competition, driving competitors into a “death spiral” and “out of business”, stacks and bribes standard bodies, and so on, ad nauesum to the extent that courts around the world must step in to correct their behavior time and time again, then I submit to you, Gentle Reader, that is not a culture of co-operative competition.
Outside of a whole raft of general issues with competition (who benefits? for how long? at whose expense? what are the intended end results? what are the unintended side effects? etc), it is clear that not all competition is beneficial. Furthermore it seems clear to me (though I’m sure not so clear to everyone) that Microsoft chooses destructive competition.
In any case, simply asserting that siding with “competition” with out further critical thought is a fatal flaw.
Recent Comments