Monopoly . . . Illegal?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Amused
A court once ruled on dred scott as well. Did that make it right?

Originally posted by: Jzero
I'm not arguing whether the law is "right" or not, but this is what the law is, and it is an excellent real-world example of just what is and is not legal about monopolies.

I really hate quoting myself.

A hint: Citing a court ruling does not trump an argument.

The argument is "Is a monopoly illegal?"
The answer is "No, but using a monopoly condition to stifle competition IS."

The Microsoft case is an excellent real world example of this.

No, it's not. It's an example of an abuse of the law and a court's inability to understand how computers and software works.

The real issue here is not a monopoly, but MS refusing to facilitate the OEM sales of a competitor's product. That lack of facilitation was twisted into hindering by lawyers duping a tech ignorant judicial system.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused The problem here is not monopolies, it's a failure to effectively compete. MS has been, and still is being punished for making a product the majority favor over the competition. The very fact that that competition exists is proof MS is not a monopoly.

you know little of network effects

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Amused
The only legal and existing monopolies are those granted by, and heavily regulated by the government. i.e., power utilities and cable companies.

And hopefully, one day, there will be none of those left.

I disagree. There are some monopolies that I think are best left as monopolies. The power companies are one. Currently, there is a push to have more and more power companies around so people can choose which one they want. Personally, I have enough to worry about and don't want to have to decipher a whole mess of price schemes (like phone companies now) just to find out which power company is best for me. Plus, who would actually own the power plants? Would there be one company that owns the plants (a power plant monopoly) and other companies just buy power at a discount rate and sell it to us for a profit? or would each company build their own plants?
The only way that more than one power company could compete would be to make their pricing so complex that no one could possibly figure out which company offers the best deal (think phone companies). I don't want that. I think it would just raise prices because the littler power companies would have more overhead. It's just my oppinion though.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Amused
The only legal and existing monopolies are those granted by, and heavily regulated by the government. i.e., power utilities and cable companies.

And hopefully, one day, there will be none of those left.

I disagree. There are some monopolies that I think are best left as monopolies. The power companies are one. Currently, there is a push to have more and more power companies around so people can choose which one they want. Personally, I have enough to worry about and don't want to have to decipher a whole mess of price schemes (like phone companies now) just to find out which power company is best for me. Plus, who would actually own the power plants? Would there be one company that owns the plants (a power plant monopoly) and other companies just buy power at a discount rate and sell it to us for a profit? or would each company build their own plants?
The only way that more than one power company could compete would be to make their pricing so complex that no one could possibly figure out which company offers the best deal (think phone companies). I don't want that. I think it would just raise prices because the littler power companies would have more overhead. It's just my oppinion though.

Translation: I don;t want to have to think for myself, so I want regulated monopolies set up so big brother can think for me.

Sorry, but I happen to like competition. It brings down prices and raises quality.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused The problem here is not monopolies, it's a failure to effectively compete. MS has been, and still is being punished for making a product the majority favor over the competition. The very fact that that competition exists is proof MS is not a monopoly.

you know little of network effects

Care to educate me?

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Amused
No, it's not. It's an example of an abuse of the law and a court's inability to understand how computers and software works.

The real issue here is not a monopoly, but MS refusing to facilitate the OEM sales of a competitor's product. That lack of facilitation was twisted into hindering by lawyers duping a tech ignorant judicial system.

Talk about getting hung up on details.

Does your opinion of the Microsoft case change this simple fact:
It is not illegal to have a monopoly.
It is illegal to use a monopoly condition to stifle competition.

If you don't like the example than ignore it. It works for me, it doesn't have to work for you.

 

[Nitemare]

Monopolies are illegal unless you are utility companies and have government backing to rape your customers.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I disagree. There are some monopolies that I think are best left as monopolies. The power companies are one. Currently, there is a push to have more and more power companies around so people can choose which one they want. Personally, I have enough to worry about and don't want to have to decipher a whole mess of price schemes (like phone companies now) just to find out which power company is best for me. Plus, who would actually own the power plants? Would there be one company that owns the plants (a power plant monopoly) and other companies just buy power at a discount rate and sell it to us for a profit? or would each company build their own plants?
The only way that more than one power company could compete would be to make their pricing so complex that no one could possibly figure out which company offers the best deal (think phone companies). I don't want that. I think it would just raise prices because the littler power companies would have more overhead. It's just my oppinion though.

Also include economies of scale. One power company in a small city can produce and sell power far, far cheaper than two power companies would do. That is even including the price premium the monopoly can add to the price of the electricity.

price(Two plants, Two sets of management, Two sets of engineers, etc) > price (One plant, monopoly pricing)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Amused
No, it's not. It's an example of an abuse of the law and a court's inability to understand how computers and software works.

The real issue here is not a monopoly, but MS refusing to facilitate the OEM sales of a competitor's product. That lack of facilitation was twisted into hindering by lawyers duping a tech ignorant judicial system.

Talk about getting hung up on details.

Does your opinion of the Microsoft case change this simple fact:
It is not illegal to have a monopoly.
It is illegal to use a monopoly condition to stifle competition.

If you don't like the example than ignore it. It works for me, it doesn't have to work for you.

Ignoring the MS example, I agree with you.

Gee, that was easy, huh?

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Amused
Ignoring the MS example, I agree with you.

Gee, that was easy, huh?

Too easy.
In keeping with standard ATOT practices, I move to continue as if we were not in agreement by calling you an "asshat," comparing your ideas to Hitler, accusing you of kowtowing to liberal stupidity, questioning your sexuality, and concluding my "argument" with a resounding "PWN3D."

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
Ignoring the MS example, I agree with you.

Gee, that was easy, huh?

Honestly I agree with both of you. Imagine someone who lept off a 50 story building with nothing but pavement to stop the fall (Netscape). Imagine that someone had a gun and amazing aim and shot that person during the freefall (Microsoft) but the shot didn't immediately kill the person. Who is guilty of causing the death? Obviously the person shooting a gun (in a city) and at another person (attempted murder) is guilty of committing some crimes. Obviously the gun had nothing to do with the death, as the person was going to die anyways.

 

[ElFenix]

quick introduction

 

[waggy]

sure there are legal monopolies (besides water, electric etc) baseball is a legal monopoly.

 

[Eli]

I've played a lot of monopoly, and never been arrested....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
quick introduction

Ah, I see. So if the consumer picks MS by an overwhelming majority, MS must be crippled or regulated beyond reason to keep the market "fair."

Same old BS. MS's dominance (not monopoly) of the market is due to consumer preference, not any backhanded illegal maneuvering on MS's part.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Amused
Ignoring the MS example, I agree with you.

Gee, that was easy, huh?

Too easy.
In keeping with standard ATOT practices, I move to continue as if we were not in agreement by calling you an "asshat," comparing your ideas to Hitler, accusing you of kowtowing to liberal stupidity, questioning your sexuality, and concluding my "argument" with a resounding "PWN3D."

:beer:

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix
quick introduction

Ah, I see. So if the consumer picks MS by an overwhelming majority, MS must be crippled or regulated beyond reason to keep the market "fair."

Same old BS. MS's dominance (not monopoly) of the market is due to consumer preference, not any backhanded illegal maneuvering on MS's part.

you are missing the point here. having taken business law and studied the microsoft antitrust case in particular, i think i can offer some clarification.

microsoft's dominance is in the operating system industry. that dominance (as you have mentioned so many times) was established by user preference. however, what is illegal is that microsoft is using their dominance in the operating system industry to bully their way into other industries, media player, browser, etc.

oh yah, btw. to the OP: your dad is right.


=|

 

[torpid]

When in doubt, RTFM.

Summary of TFM

"An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm provides a product or service, and it has become the only supplier not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. The Act is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; rather, that is competition working properly."

 

[dquan97]

So I can't have Atlantic, Ventnor, and Marvin Gardens? :Q

 

[SaturnX]

Originally posted by: theNEOone
microsoft's dominance is in the operating system industry. that dominance (as you have mentioned so many times) was established by user preference. however, what is illegal is that microsoft is using their dominance in the operating system industry to bully their way into other industries, media player, browser, etc.

You know, heaven forbid a company tries to expand their product line and generate more profit. Last time I checked, we've a got a Capitalistic system running here, so I really don't consider Microsoft "bullying" their way into other industries... they had their initial setup, the OSes.. that got them name recognition, and they went with it. If only companies developed more power / better Media players, everyone would be all over it, but no, it isn't like that. RealMedia, Quicktime, for example just have awful media players.... even the average PC user know this... Microsoft is by no means "bullying" their way into the Media / Browser market, or even console market.. I don't seem them buying out RealMedia, or anything, they've got name recognition and their running with it.

And if you say that MS bought out companies for Xbox.. wake up, because this happens ALL THE TIME.

--Mark

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Amusedzealot shmealot. MS is not a monopoly, nor is their browser. There is, and always has been alternatives. The problem here is not monopolies, it's a failure to effectively compete. MS has been, and still is being punished for making a product the majority favor over the competition. The very fact that that competition exists is proof MS is not a monopoly.

Sour grapes is now grounds for charges of monopolizing a market and "unfair" practices. The "fair" trade people will not be happy until every successfull company has it's legs cut off so the losers can have a "fair" chance.

I'm not going to debate HISTORIC FACT.

Microsoft's campaign to foreclose Netscape from the OEM channel involved a "massive and multifarious investment" in a "complementary set of tactics": (1) Microsoft "forced OEMs to take Internet Explorer with Windows and forbade them to remove or obscure it," which not only ensured the presence of IE on PC systems, but also "increased the costs attendant to pre-installing and promoting Navigator"; (2) Microsoft "imposed additional technical restrictions to increase the cost of promoting Navigator"; (3) Microsoft offered OEMs valuable consideration for commitments to promote IE to the exclusion of any other browser; and (4) Microsoft "threatened to penalize individual OEMs that insisted on pre-installing and promoting Navigator." FF 241 (JA 2307). The district court found that "Microsoft's campaign to capture the OEM channel succeeded."

That is STRAIGHT out of the appeal filed by Microsoft after finally being found GUILTY in 2000 of violating the Sherman Antitrust Law and a number of state laws.

I'm not arguing whether the law is "right" or not, but this is what the law is, and it is an excellent real-world example of just what is and is not legal about monopolies.

A court once ruled on dred scott as well. Did that make it right?

A hint: Citing a court ruling does not trump an argument.

BTW, the case is silly on it's face. It's like Chrysler suing GM because GM wont feature mopar parts on GM cars. If Netscape was truely a better browser, the majority would have favored it. What Netscape whined about was not being allowed to be packaged with a competitor's product. MS offered incentives to keep IE. So what? Are all rebates now attempts at monopolies?

Boo fscking hoo.

You are assuming that people are smart enough to know which is the better product. I've got news for you, they are not. You may be able to say IE is a better product than Navigator, but a majority of computer users only use IE because they simply don't know any better. Microsoft used this fact to their advantage which is why they lost this case in the courts.

There are plently of instances where a superior product has floundered because it's competition made it impossible to compete. Just because you think IE was a better product does not justify the tactics Microsoft used to gain market share.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The abuse is illegal, not the monopoly itself.

Viper GTS

That's my understanding.
They can't shut you down just because no one bothers to compete with you. It's when you try to shut down and stifle competition that you break the law.

Think Microsoft v. Netscape a few years back. Microsoft's leveraged their veritable monopoly to drive Netscape into the ground by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.

It's their product, they have that choice. :roll: I'm so sick of hearing other companies complain that they have some sort of right to control other the products of other companies. :|

 

[Savij]

What about government sactioned monopolies? Before the deregulation of a lot of these, didn't the government strictly control who could provide utilities, cable tv, telephone, and rail service in an area? I thought monopolies in these sectors were encouraged so that you wouldn't have 10 different companies laying their own power lines,their own telephone lines, cable tv lines.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Amusedzealot shmealot. MS is not a monopoly, nor is their browser. There is, and always has been alternatives. The problem here is not monopolies, it's a failure to effectively compete. MS has been, and still is being punished for making a product the majority favor over the competition. The very fact that that competition exists is proof MS is not a monopoly.

Sour grapes is now grounds for charges of monopolizing a market and "unfair" practices. The "fair" trade people will not be happy until every successfull company has it's legs cut off so the losers can have a "fair" chance.

I'm not going to debate HISTORIC FACT.

Microsoft's campaign to foreclose Netscape from the OEM channel involved a "massive and multifarious investment" in a "complementary set of tactics": (1) Microsoft "forced OEMs to take Internet Explorer with Windows and forbade them to remove or obscure it," which not only ensured the presence of IE on PC systems, but also "increased the costs attendant to pre-installing and promoting Navigator"; (2) Microsoft "imposed additional technical restrictions to increase the cost of promoting Navigator"; (3) Microsoft offered OEMs valuable consideration for commitments to promote IE to the exclusion of any other browser; and (4) Microsoft "threatened to penalize individual OEMs that insisted on pre-installing and promoting Navigator." FF 241 (JA 2307). The district court found that "Microsoft's campaign to capture the OEM channel succeeded."

That is STRAIGHT out of the appeal filed by Microsoft after finally being found GUILTY in 2000 of violating the Sherman Antitrust Law and a number of state laws.

I'm not arguing whether the law is "right" or not, but this is what the law is, and it is an excellent real-world example of just what is and is not legal about monopolies.

A court once ruled on dred scott as well. Did that make it right?

A hint: Citing a court ruling does not trump an argument.

BTW, the case is silly on it's face. It's like Chrysler suing GM because GM wont feature mopar parts on GM cars. If Netscape was truely a better browser, the majority would have favored it. What Netscape whined about was not being allowed to be packaged with a competitor's product. MS offered incentives to keep IE. So what? Are all rebates now attempts at monopolies?

Boo fscking hoo.

You are assuming that people are smart enough to know which is the better product. I've got news for you, they are not. You may be able to say IE is a better product than Navigator, but a majority of computer users only use IE because they simply don't know any better. Microsoft used this fact to their advantage which is why they lost this case in the courts.

There are plently of instances where a superior product has floundered because it's competition made it impossible to compete. Just because you think IE was a better product does not justify the tactics Microsoft used to gain market share.

So Big Brother must protect us from our own stupidity???

Sorry, but whether the choice is made from ignorance, or educated decisions, it is STILL the choice of the consumer. You cannot cripple successful companies simply because you deem the average citizen too stupid to make up their own minds.

It is elitist garbage like this that will slowly erode all of our freedoms.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: SaturnX

Originally posted by: theNEOone
microsoft's dominance is in the operating system industry. that dominance (as you have mentioned so many times) was established by user preference. however, what is illegal is that microsoft is using their dominance in the operating system industry to bully their way into other industries, media player, browser, etc.

You know, heaven forbid a company tries to expand their product line and generate more profit. Last time I checked, we've a got a Capitalistic system running here, so I really don't consider Microsoft "bullying" their way into other industries... they had their initial setup, the OSes.. that got them name recognition, and they went with it. If only companies developed more power / better Media players, everyone would be all over it, but no, it isn't like that. RealMedia, Quicktime, for example just have awful media players.... even the average PC user know this... Microsoft is by no means "bullying" their way into the Media / Browser market, or even console market.. I don't seem them buying out RealMedia, or anything, they've got name recognition and their running with it.

And if you say that MS bought out companies for Xbox.. wake up, because this happens ALL THE TIME.

--Mark

listen, i'm not having an argument with you. fine, real player sucks, netscape sucks....that's all great. however, i'll try and clarify once again: this argument has nothing to do w/ the quality of the products, it has to do with the BUSINESS activities of a company. one more time: we're talking about (but not limited to) deals, pricing, exclusivity agreements, and distribution that hinder competition - not research, product development, quality, etc. there are alot of factors that go into categorizing a company's activities as anticompetitive. capitalism has nothing to do w/ anticompetitive behavior, and has everything to do with the law, with business, and with the courts. these are laws established based on hundreds of years of commerce, and by men and women with experience and education that probably shadows yours. if you want to have an argument about the merits of this system, take it up with them.


=|