It gets to the point where it's too hard to hold giant corporations (usually propped up by government intervention no less) accountable for environmental damage, or any kind of cheating. These corporations are usually just allowed to do as they do because they can just pay off whatever fines the EPA raises against them. In an ideal free market with strong private property rights, you would be able to call out someone for polluting your water supply and everyone would actually care. But when you're dealing with international corporations that are probably in bed with every level of government, this can't really work out. It's not the market's fault here.

It's probably a task that would be better served at a more local level than at a federal level. There's far too much room for corruption if such an organization grows too large.

Yeah, but we live in a pretty different age. A large company has pretty vast resources to quickly reverse engineer a product, which will can destroy incentive for other companies to invest into a new technology. I guess in a purely capitalistic society, that would work, but that is not the world we live in.

Apple aside, doesn't that present a pretty big problem when you have a smaller company going up against a larger one? How can a smaller company compete when their project can be easily reverse engineered by a large corporation? Don't they need some kind of safety net, or otherwise they would be too afraid to bring the product to bear.

Developing software, like any product, is a very time consuming and expensive effort. What incentive does a company have in developing a product if it will be copied out of the gate?