I'm a bit irked by the conclusion here:
"Apparently the typewriter example is of such importance to many writers because it can so easily persuade people that an interventionist technology policy is necessary. How else to explain its continued use in this literature? Since an interventionist technology policy is no more likely to benefit consumers than are the myriad other government interventions in the market, we should not be surprised that good examples are largely fictional."<p>I don't see how you can infer that because the basis for an argument of government intervention by some writers is flawed, that government intervention is flawed.  Regardless of whether or not government intervention is the right idea, it seems strange for a magazine based on reason to make the claim : "A → ~B" is true, 
But A is false, therefore B is true.