8 ms·

Again, simply being dominant in a market _is not_ being a monopoly. Monopolies are definitively the exclusive control or possession of the supply of the market

Again, simply being dominant in a market _is not_ being a monopoly. Monopolies are definitively the exclusive control or possession of the supply of the market. Just as a Monopsony is exclusive control or possession of the demand in a market. Microsoft has dominant market position but they do not control the entire supply of OS, hence they are the popular choice but not the exclusive choice. Whether or not a monopoly is legal or illegal is non sequitur, since it doesn't apply in context here. There are plenty of legal, regional monopolies that benefit consumers from such regulation in utilities, but those are not tech markets.

mdorazio 7y ago
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions, but they're not the ones used by the justice department. "An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct." [1] That's somewhat different from your definition in that it is deliberately open to interpretation (the Sherman Act, for instance, doesn't actually define monopoly) and revolves around anti-competitive conduct rather than exclusive control of supply (which isn't required - ex. Microsoft never had 100% of the OS market, nor did Standard Oil have 100% of the oil market). [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 7y ago
  That is because the DOJ website is only interested in defining lawful vs unlawful monopoly, not defining what a monopoly is. The definition of the word "Monopoly" is already widely denoted as supply side control: - Wikipedia: The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) - Investopedia: A monopoly exists when a single entity is the sole provider of a particular asset or service. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/whats-difference-between-monopoly-and-monopsony.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/whats-differ...) - Oxford Dictionary: The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/monopoly https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/monopoly)
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    The definition of the word "Monopoly" is already widely denoted as supply side control: That's obviously too narrow. Someone controlling the demand side could be just as obnoxious. A company in a company town is in control of the demand side of the labor market, for example.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      So you think Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia, and Investopedia are all too narrow with words? Control of the demand side of a market is called a Monopsony, not Monopoly. It's mentioned in the thread above, more info here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        You are correct, sir! I remember now HN has had this discussion before. However, I think most people would refer to both a Monopsony and Monopoly as the latter.
        kortilla 7y ago
        No, that’s not true. People rarely even consider that there is a special term for being the only buyer or controlling all of the buyers. I can’t think of any scenarios where people referred to the military as having a monopoly on the missile market. It doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t even make missiles.
        stcredzero 7y ago
        I can’t think of any scenarios where people referred to the military as having a monopoly on the missile market. But Farmers being ravaged by middlemen would use that term about the middlemen buying their crops.
Fellshard 7y ago
This always comes up - the vocabulary we use in this discussion has been heavily tainted over the years by those who would most benefit by broadening the definition of monopoly. Keep fighting the fight. Precision in language is vital on this front.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mdorazio 7y ago

I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions, but they're not the ones used by the justice department. "An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct." [1] That's somewhat different from your definition in that it is deliberately open to interpretation (the Sherman Act, for instance, doesn't actually define monopoly) and revolves around anti-competitive conduct rather than exclusive control of supply (which isn't required - ex. Microsoft never had 100% of the OS market, nor did Standard Oil have 100% of the oil market). [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 7y ago
That is because the DOJ website is only interested in defining lawful vs unlawful monopoly, not defining what a monopoly is. The definition of the word "Monopoly" is already widely denoted as supply side control: - Wikipedia: The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) - Investopedia: A monopoly exists when a single entity is the sole provider of a particular asset or service. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/whats-difference-between-monopoly-and-monopsony.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/whats-differ...) - Oxford Dictionary: The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/monopoly https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/monopoly)
- stcredzero 7y ago
  The definition of the word "Monopoly" is already widely denoted as supply side control: That's obviously too narrow. Someone controlling the demand side could be just as obnoxious. A company in a company town is in control of the demand side of the labor market, for example.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    So you think Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia, and Investopedia are all too narrow with words? Control of the demand side of a market is called a Monopsony, not Monopoly. It's mentioned in the thread above, more info here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      You are correct, sir! I remember now HN has had this discussion before. However, I think most people would refer to both a Monopsony and Monopoly as the latter.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        No, that’s not true. People rarely even consider that there is a special term for being the only buyer or controlling all of the buyers. I can’t think of any scenarios where people referred to the military as having a monopoly on the missile market. It doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t even make missiles.
        stcredzero 7y ago
        I can’t think of any scenarios where people referred to the military as having a monopoly on the missile market. But Farmers being ravaged by middlemen would use that term about the middlemen buying their crops.

Fellshard 7y ago

This always comes up - the vocabulary we use in this discussion has been heavily tainted over the years by those who would most benefit by broadening the definition of monopoly. Keep fighting the fight. Precision in language is vital on this front.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]