4 ms·
The usual argument is that Apple/IBM/Intel have innovated simply because they do not hold monopolies. If they were to achieve monopoly domination they would hav
by caoilte 10y ago
The usual argument is that Apple/IBM/Intel have innovated simply because they do not hold monopolies. If they were to achieve monopoly domination they would have a duty of care to their shareholders to spend the money that they currently spend on innovating on preventing competitors from entering the marketplace.
Don't confuse monopolies with big business.
Your electricity utility company, your cable internet/(?television?)/(?phone?) company are monopolies.
Arguably, Google is a search monoopoly.
Apple does not have a monopoly on smart phones.
- noobermin 10y agoThe article does not deal with monopolies but the existence of big business. Either that or I misread it.
- caoilte 10y agoYou appear to have misread the article. Not difficult. They use language very differently to the way we do today. A key line, 'They [representatives of big business] regarded with especial favor the establishment of the proposition that a combination must be in "unreasonable" restraint of commerce to be unlawful' They're basically saying, "phew just because the government went after Standard Oil, doesn't mean it will come after us next because we are also big." In those days they talked a lot about "trust busting". This is a monopoly when one company creates an artificial market or a cartel when several do.
- yuhong 10y agoThis reminds me of this RWT thread though: http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=158487&curpostid=158487 http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=158487&curposti...