How is the market free if the government tells companies how to run? How is free, contractual decision making anti competitive?

Yes it does, if you're not using the same definitions an argument is just two people yelling into the void.

There are multiple contexts for property, beyond "life liberty and property"

How's the Market free when one Company can blackmail their partners to not use the competition with for example Gaming Names??

Self ownership is the cornerstone of all other rights, I would argue

Government shouldn't tell companies how to run, except when attempting to negate externalities.

Again, Government should prevent abuse from all sides. They are to enforce the rules.

>blackmail their partners
How are they managing that?

If you don't do it, we do not do business with you

Abuse is a real flimsy word there @Stefan Payne .

If we are talking about things like Intel or nVidia, where Monopoly isn't far off, the Gouvernment should watch them and prevent them from abusing their power.

Intel is a monopoly.

>has competitors
>is a monopoly
Pick one

Not close to one.

It is a monopoly.

In what sense?

Every computer chip made is licensed or sold by intel.

Specifically CPU's

When AMD makes a CPU they pay intel a licensing fee for said chip.

Source?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-x86-cpu,7285.html

That's from when the deal was going to expire in 2009.

>x86
That's not the only CPU architecture

And it might actually fuck us in the long run to keep using it

Okay, but if you want a desktop, or laptop computer that's what you're getting.

Yes, RISC was better.

But it died.

Do you think standard oil was the only oil company?

See I think the main issue is that unlike a physical monopoly, in which one company can set rates due to lack of feasibility wrt competition, software monopolies are a result of regulation in the first place

Hell, pharmaceutical monopolies are primarily as well

Software monopolies are a result of regulation... what regulation?

Intellectual property law

Patten law?

The fact that you can own an idea (basically indefinitely) necessarily places one company "in charge" of a good chunk of their potential competition, if not all of it outright

Patents can only be maintained for 20 years.

What's worse, many times said company did not actually come up with the idea

Or no, 50 years?

There's more to IP than patents, and IP law is an ever-expanding section of the legal system

No 20 years.

No patens are pretty well settled.

I think you're talking about copyright law.