I'm thinking about which is the static and which the dynamic. For example, I would have thought preferring innovation in the form of software updates, over innovation in the form of entirely new software products, was a preference for static competition. https://twitter.com/HalSinger/status/1315011902259507200

But the argument seems to be that innovators don't really move toward dynamic competition (new products) if their existing product is copied; they exit innovation entirely. Is there evidence of that?

If we don't yet have much evidence one way or the other, it seems equally plausible to me that seeing one's own or other people's ideas get copied by big US companies, would lead one to pursue IP-protected forms of innovation that cannot be copied w/o permission.

So, for example, if West Elm is unhappy that its Orb chair design is being knocked off (even after Amazon pulled its version, 3rd party sellers still offer similar chairs, which is EXACTLY WHAT I ALWAYS POINT OUT WILL HAPPEN bc copying is not a skill unique to big companies)...

...West Elm might opt to innovate in a way that's difficult to copy, either for mechanical or legal reasons. Isn't that likely to be a more significant innovation (as pharma product-hopping cases have taught us to sit in judgement of)?

Static-versus-dynamic underlies many debates. If a new entrant to a product market initially prices below cost to get people to try an unknown, that's regarded as anticompetitive predatory pricing by some (static?), but as pro-competitive appeal to consumers by others (dynamic?).

Eg some see 2d Cir in Buffalo Evening News as permitting predatory pricing. Others see it as permitting the disruption of a system where one newspaper offered only a weekday morning & Sunday edition, the other offered only weekday evenings & Saturday https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17744975234630517901

Static arguments in a lot of policy areas are zero-sum. Eg the static argument regarding immigration and wages is that immigrants increase the supply of labor, so they must be causing wages to go down (ignoring that immigrants are also new consumers who increase demand for labor)

Static: allowing same-sex marriage weakens the institution. Assumes straight couples won't want to be in the same institution as gay people (0 sum); ignores that admitting gay people to the club gave them a self-interested reason to maintain the institution #nationalcomingoutday

Or the American Guild of Organists rule that obligated a new entrant to pay the incumbent if the new entrant were hired to play at a venue where the incumbent regularly played. Zero sum: only so many organist gigs, must keep them for incumbents https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/03/american-guild-organists-agrees-eliminate-rules-restrict

Doesn't admit of the possibility that new entrants doing something different -- say, adapting Bollywood love songs to be played on a church organ -- might increase the demand for organ music, especially among people for whom organs were not a big part of their previous experience

This thread is maybe a little confused by the combined effects of post-hiking exhaustion and s'mores-induced sugar high, but to me zero-sum thinking always feels like a door being closed: no space left here! Especially if you might upset our cozy way of doing things!