Just my .02
Hope it helps
Not sure I understand number 3 properly
1) Suppose a firm invents a technology that reduces its costs so far that it can drive all of its competitors out of business, even though the price that maximizes the firm's profits is well above its marginal costs. Would consumers be better off if this firm was forbidden from introducing its cost-saving technology?
American capitalism at its best ...
It would set a bad precedent if corporations "didn't" look for ways to reduce costs. Just because it forces its competition out of the market, does not mean that it cannot be applied to other business models. The invention of the automobile forced a ton of horse drawn buggy companies out of business. Honda and Toyota introduced cost saving technology to the Automobile market in the 70's and damn near put the big three out of business, but the Big 3 learned, and adapted from it. Again, it would set a bad precedent it corporations did not constantly look at ways to "reduce costs" ..
Baseballer02 wrote:2) Some music groups are in favor of allowing people to distribute their songs at no charge through P2P networks, while other are strongly opposed. Can you suggest why there are these differences?
It is simply exposure.. The more a band is heard, the more popular they will become.
Baseballer02 wrote:4) Some people argue that copyright protection and patent protections should be abolished, because the owners of patents and copyrights are effectively monopolists when it comes to supplying the goods for which they have these rights. What do you think would happen to the rate of innovation if patents and copyrights were abolished? What would be the likely impact on the well-being of consumers?
The rate of innovation would come to a screeching halt..
Billy Bob could invent the newest "paperclip", but not have the resources to take it to market, and some shrewd business owner could easily steal his idea and make millions. Patents and copyrights are designed as protection, and rightfully so.