A VC« The Looming Attention Crisis | Main | VC Cliche of the Week »
Technology and Markets Trump The Law
One of the most powerful lessons of my life was watching the government's case against Microsoft.
Clearly Microsoft was and is a monopoly. Clearly they had engaged in anti-competitive practices.
But the Government's case against Microsoft was largely a waste of time and taxpayer's money.
Because in the end, all the goverment gave Microsoft was a slap on the wrist.
But Linux, well that's another story.
And Firefox.
And MySQL.
And on and on.
The market and technology (in this case open source technology) will take away that monopoly.
Customers don't like to be treated shabbily and they will move to cheaper and better solutions when they are comfortable with them.
So why do I bring this up?
Because I have been thinking for some time that all of this hand wringing over Roe vs. Wade is just like the government's case against Microsoft. A big waste of time and energy. Because technology and markets will solve this problem and the law is powerless to stop it.
Plan B is getting us pretty close to a situation where a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy can do so in the privacy of her own home. Without obtaining the permission of her husband Judge Alito.
But there will be scientific advances beyond Plan B.
You can't stop science.
And you can't stop markets.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
November 1, 2005 Politics | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5934/3497468
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Technology and Markets Trump The Law:
Comments
please please please do not get lulled into a false sense of security that plan B is the answer to allow (without objection) the conservatives to overturn roe vs wade...after all the FDA has NOT approved plan B for over the counter sales....PLUS under this administration it is not so far fetched to believe they would or could have plan B removed from the market all together....all they need is a 'judy miller like ' reporter to put forth the propaganda that plan B is dangerous to a women's health, think vioxx.......
PS I enjoy your blog and read it daily on bloglines...
Posted by: bruce d verstandig | Nov 1, 2005 10:57:38 PM
don't allow Casey to win the nomination in PA. chuck2006.com
it's not just the Republicans that are a problem...
Posted by: charlie crystle | Nov 1, 2005 11:25:49 PM
Fred, I'm not sure the analogy is apt. I won't wade into the Roe v. Wade debate, but don't pooh-pooh Government oversight as impotent so quickly.
The Justice Department could have absolutely eviscerated MSFT. But you forget that one significant thing happened between the start of the Government's case (5/1998) and the "slap on the wrist." (11/2001)... Clinton's term ended and the Bush Administration took over. Do you think that had anything to do with the way that case ended?
In any event, even with the weak remedy the rise of Firefox and the others was now enabled because MSFT could no longer act to crush competitors as they had in the past. The bottom line is that antitrust laws, enforced appropriately, preserve competition and are therefore good for markets and consumers.
Posted by: Brouhaha | Nov 2, 2005 7:29:33 AM
Access is the word here. Plan B might pass but there might not be any available to use. Perhaps only the wealthy will be able to get their hands on that particular pill.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it also says something about the morality of our country. It would be a very sad day in court. I can't imagine what type of reaction there would be among the majority of this country. The loudest people are generally the complainers (i.e. the far right), not the people who are happy with the status quo.
Posted by: gothamgal | Nov 2, 2005 11:13:41 AM
Where is the will to develop alternatives to a surgical abortion? Pharma companies are reluctant even to do contraceptive research and product development because they're afraid of being boycotted by the right-wingers. Women are not seen as full members of society in America, so why devleop drugs that would benefit them?
Bush has nominated a man to the Supreme Court who thinks that men and women are not equal partners in a marriage, that a woman does not control her body. That is the driving force in the marketplace today.
Roussel Uclaf gave the rights to RU-486 to a non-profit because no one else would produce it. Bush I banned the import of the drug.
When people like this are in control of the marketplace, they are the controlling factor, not demand.
Posted by: VMCombs | Nov 2, 2005 11:32:21 AM
gotta say, Fred. I don't share your faith and agree with VMCombs that political forces can control the market as well as, if not better than, demand.
Just look at the current Planned Parenthood "save roe" and "Fill My Pill" campaign. Already, some companies' pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for "morning after" pills. In rural areas, where Big Chain replaced everything else, there will be no access to such drugs if the company or the government don't enforce it. Our current administration, and many large companies, would certainly like that to be the case and will probably take steps to make certain that it remains so.
Posted by: scott | Nov 2, 2005 6:16:33 PM
I would have to agree in spirit with most of the comments, by adding that the difference is between the markets (tech v pharm-chem) themselves. Pharm-chem is way too entrenched with the political process to enjoy the freedom of operating / innovating outside of political influence.
By comparison, politics & law are largely reactive to technological developments.
And because of that difference, R v W is very important. It isn't a perfect thing, but it maintains a relative "openness" in the "market". As Justice Blackmun noted in his opinion(s) on mootness: Because abortion and law / politics are so heavily entwined, you have to consider that a pregnancy going to term is far & away shorter than any political / legal process. ("Jane Roe" had already given birth by the time her case was heard by the Supreme Court.)
Posted by: Michael | Nov 3, 2005 11:07:37 AM
I've got to agree with gothamgal and Scott. Target is claiming that it can't make pharmacists fill birth control pill prescriptions, because it would be a violation of their civil rights.
And why would markets cater to poor women who don't have much money?
Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Nov 3, 2005 1:30:29 PM
Read Charles Krauthammer's new one today: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_4_05_CK.html
today. Don't believe the "attacks" on Alito -- regardless of his personal preferences, he clearly has a history of following precedent. And btw, the conservative against Roe v. Wade are not necessarily against abortion -- but are against the Supreme Court, rather than state legislatures deciding what was law. Especially since it was a disgraceful piece of legal reasoning (ie there was none).
Posted by: principled conservative | Nov 4, 2005 8:06:22 AM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
