Monopoly . . . Illegal?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.


=|

MS makes software. They branched out into non-OS software quite early. Their goal in their operating system is to integrate those tasks that people use everyday. Browsers and media players are best when seamlessly accessed for the average user. That other companies wanted to make this software is irrelevant. They did not have sole rights to them, or any right to interfere with MS's goal of making everyday tasks integrated and seamless within THEIR software.

BTW, MS made an integrated burning program in XP. Why aren't the other software companies up in arms over this? Because they make a superior product and the vast majority choose them over MS. But you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be filing lawsuits when MS makes one that can compete.

What next? Should Norton sue MS for integrating a defragger???

Should aftermarket windshield wiper companies sue the automakers for including windshield wipers on cars?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SaturnX
You know, heaven forbid a company tries to expand their product line and generate more profit.

last time i checked giving away your products for free isn't making money on them.

and now that the netscape threat is effectively dead, MS has stopped development on outlook express and new versions of IE will only be available by buying a new copy of windows... progress indeed...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.


=|

Draw the line where dealer incentives, sales and rebates becomes an attmept at monopoly rather than competition.

The tactics you are crying about are used by any successful company to gain market share. The problem with you folks is you cannot stand that MS gained the vast majority of the market share because they offered a superior product.

Again, your definition of "fair" is cutting off all the legs of the football players so the legless guy can compete.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SaturnX
You know, heaven forbid a company tries to expand their product line and generate more profit.

last time i checked giving away your products for free isn't making money on them.

and now that the netscape threat is effectively dead, MS has stopped development on outlook express and new versions of IE will only be available by buying a new copy of windows... progress indeed...

So any company that offers free giveaways is partaking in monopolistic activity?

 

[ElFenix]

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."

no, you obviously don't see. the consumer isn't necessarily picking MS these days because the product is 'better,' or because it is a better price-performance ratio, it is simply because all the lemmings before them picked that product and so it is almost impossible for them to not pick MS now.

 

[imported_yovonbishop]

yeah.. the government has to allow certain monopolies or else many things would be chaotic.. there are natural monopolies like your local gas and power companies and public water suppliers and there are other monopolies like the NBA, MLB, and NFL. The reason why the gov't encourages natural monopolies is because if there were companies competing to win the battle over water or something then many raw materials and resources would be wasted. Instead, the gov't just allows monopolies and regulates how much they charge etc.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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."

no, you obviously don't see. the consumer isn't necessarily picking MS these days because the product is 'better,' or because it is a better price-performance ratio, it is simply because all the lemmings before them picked that product and so it is almost impossible for them to not pick MS now.

Ah, so it's the same with fashion as well, right? Where are all the lawsuits against Hilfiger or Lauren?

It is elitist garbage to believe that the general public bases all their choices on lemming like mindlessness.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SaturnX
You know, heaven forbid a company tries to expand their product line and generate more profit.

last time i checked giving away your products for free isn't making money on them.

and now that the netscape threat is effectively dead, MS has stopped development on outlook express and new versions of IE will only be available by buying a new copy of windows... progress indeed...

So any company that offers free giveaways is partaking in monopolistic activity?

umm... no, they already had the monopoly. the tying of their products to their monopoly product is the objectionable activity.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Ah, so it's the same with fashion as well, right? Where are all the lawsuits against Hilfiger or Lauren?

It is elitist garbage to believe that the general public bases all their choices on lemming like mindlessness.

hilfiger and lauren are pretty damn competitive. yet another bad analogy.

and who said all choices?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Should aftermarket windshield wiper companies sue the automakers for including windshield wipers on cars?

bad analogy. the wipers are probably made by another company to begin with, plus the auto industry is far, far more competitive than the desktop operating system industry.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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."

no, you obviously don't see. the consumer isn't necessarily picking MS these days because the product is 'better,' or because it is a better price-performance ratio, it is simply because all the lemmings before them picked that product and so it is almost impossible for them to not pick MS now.

Ah, so it's the same with fashion as well, right? Where are all the lawsuits against Hilfiger or Lauren?

It is elitist garbage to believe that the general public bases all their choices on lemming like mindlessness.

hilfiger and lauren are pretty damn competitive. yet another bad analogy.

Not really. At any rate, keep believing we need Big Brother to protect us from our mindless "lemming" like consumer choices, and we wont HAVE any choices.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Amused
Draw the line where dealer incentives, sales and rebates becomes an attmept at monopoly rather than competition.

The tactics you are crying about are used by any successful company to gain market share. The problem with you folks is you cannot stand that MS gained the vast majority of the market share because they offered a superior product.

Again, your definition of "fair" is cutting off all the legs of the football players so the legless guy can compete.

you're using really silly analogies, so i'll just disregard those.

however (and this is important) there is a fundamental difference between activities that attempt to gain market share, and using a monoplostic position to gain market share in other industries. how small the difference might seem, the fact remains that anticompetitive behavior hurts consumers, and in turn the economy. argue it all you want, but i would really like to know how your opinion has any merit when viewed alongside hundres of years of commerce and economic research. oh, i forgot....ATOT is full of experts in every field imaginable. :roll:

and you make alot of assumptions about individuals' opinions. (similar how you make the assumption that you're right and the business world is wrong). personally, i admire microsoft, and particularly bill gates for his creativity and vision. he gave a speech at my school, and i really enjoyed it.


=|

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

hilfiger and lauren are pretty damn competitive. yet another bad analogy.

Not really. At any rate, keep believing we need Big Brother to protect us from our mindless "lemming" like consumer choices, and we wont HAVE any choices.

last i checked there were quite a few people selling clothing, even in the nicer department stores with hilfiger and lauren.

as for your second point, what you fail to realize is we already DON"T HAVE any choices. you want to use a dekstop computer, you pretty much damn better have an MS operating system, else its like having a telephone and not being able to call anyone.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

hilfiger and lauren are pretty damn competitive. yet another bad analogy.

Not really. At any rate, keep believing we need Big Brother to protect us from our mindless "lemming" like consumer choices, and we wont HAVE any choices.

last i checked there were quite a few people selling clothing, even in the nicer department stores with hilfiger and lauren.

as for your second point, what you fail to realize is we already DON"T HAVE any choices. you want to use a dekstop computer, you pretty much damn better have an MS operating system, else its like having a telephone and not being able to call anyone.

hey, i think amused is forever stuck in his mindset. i say we let him be, some people are just hopeless when it comes to certain things.

hopefully he'll forget all about it, and won't realize that big brother is actually recording him through his computer monitor and is going to kidnap him, take him to a secret location, and perform experiments on his testicles.


=|

 

[Jzero]

Amused, I don't think you clearly understand the circumstances of the Microsoft case.

Microsoft had an existing LEGAL monopoly in the operating system vertical. Their monopoly existed solely due to lack of competition. Mac was marginalized, and alternative OSes were even farther off the radar screen. MS's market share was so vast that they could be (and were) considered a de facto monopoly. But they didn't create that monopoly by illegal means.

Where they went wrong was when they used their legal monopoly to crush Netscape. You can claim it had something to do with competition, but the prosecution's claim was this:
By bundling IE with Windows95, they were essentially putting IE in the hands of at least 90% of the market, and most of those people would use IE because it was already there and not because it was somehow any better than Netscape.

The crux of their case was not that Netscape could not compete so they should get a leg up. Rather, it was that Microsoft used it's existing legal monopoly to attempt to forge a new monopoly in a different market.

Again, I'm not going to argue whether it's "right" or "wrong." But that is the reasoning. This isn't outlawing "Giveaways." And it's not outlawing crushing the competition. It's outlawing using a monopoly condition illegally.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: Allio
There are advantages to monopolies, you know.

yep.
you get double rent.
you can build houses and hotels.

 

[Pex]

legal monopolies include cable and water pipe companies.

 

[torpid]

There are numerous differences between bundling ie with win95 and bundling burning software with xp. For one, they purchased the burning software, it's repackaged adaptec stuff. Another one is that almost all burners come with their own software anyway.

It wasn't JUST the bundling of ie with windows that they did. They did a lot of other underhanded things. Such as strongarming ISPs so that they used IE, intentionally offering software for free to penetrate the market and eliminate competition, failing to release API specifications (thus preventing competitors to non-OS software from competing on a level playing field), etc.