3 ms·

> So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single com

> So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.

stale2002 6y ago
> The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. Which is in reference to significant market power. So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required. And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm. The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act. And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies. Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC: "A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.". So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
- nodamage 6y ago
  While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred. Feel free to point one out. > "which does not require a monopoly" Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power is in fact required in order to pursue a refusal to deal. In the future when you see someone use the term "monopoly power", you should interpret that to mean "significant and durable market power" instead of "a literal monopoly". It will reduce confusion.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power No, it is not misleading. Instead, your terms are misleading. They are misleading, because when someone says "monopoly power", what someone would immediately jump to is a singular firm. But that is not true. Instead, the only thing required is significant and durable market power. The less misleading term would be to say that a company only has to have significant and durable market power, for it to fall under anti trust law, and you should also point out that it does not require a literal singular firm. > when you see someone use the term "monopoly power" No, actually. What I will do is correct them to instead use the less misleading term. It is a huge misconception that people have, that anti trust law only requires a singular firm for it to apply. It is extremely common for people to say that. It is so common that the literal FTC had to made this clarification in their official information that they released. If the freaking FTC had to release this clarification, then I think that it is important to point this out. > It will reduce confusion. What would instead reduce confusion even more, is if people made a specific effort to point out that a singular firm is not required for anti trust law to apply. Because this is the most common misconception when people talk about anti trust law. (It is so common that the FTC has to clarify this in their documents!)
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Trust me, no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. When someone says Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, they are aware that macOS and Linux exist as competing operating systems. They don't think that Windows is the only operating system in the world.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. Actually, it is extremely common. It so common that the literal FTC has to put out information to correct this misconception. Just go look at the offical FTC statement. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... Because apparently, the FTC thinks that this is important enough, and a common enough mistake, that they have to correct this common misconception. Also, Do you take back your pervious statements, and agree with me when I said the following then? "Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly" Because if you now agree with me, then great. Because my original statement was that a company has to have significant market power, which you said was incorrect. But it now seems like you agree me with, that all that has to happen is that a company has to have significant market power. It seems like you do not think that I was "incorrect" to point out that only significant market power is required for the Sherman act to apply. So your previous statement, where you said that this was "incorrect", no longer holds. That is great that it seems like you no longer think that my original statement was incorrect, where I said that only significant market power was required.

stale2002 6y ago

> The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. Which is in reference to significant market power. So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required. And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm. The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act. And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies. Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC: "A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.". So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.

nodamage 6y ago
While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred. Feel free to point one out. > "which does not require a monopoly" Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power is in fact required in order to pursue a refusal to deal. In the future when you see someone use the term "monopoly power", you should interpret that to mean "significant and durable market power" instead of "a literal monopoly". It will reduce confusion.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power No, it is not misleading. Instead, your terms are misleading. They are misleading, because when someone says "monopoly power", what someone would immediately jump to is a singular firm. But that is not true. Instead, the only thing required is significant and durable market power. The less misleading term would be to say that a company only has to have significant and durable market power, for it to fall under anti trust law, and you should also point out that it does not require a literal singular firm. > when you see someone use the term "monopoly power" No, actually. What I will do is correct them to instead use the less misleading term. It is a huge misconception that people have, that anti trust law only requires a singular firm for it to apply. It is extremely common for people to say that. It is so common that the literal FTC had to made this clarification in their official information that they released. If the freaking FTC had to release this clarification, then I think that it is important to point this out. > It will reduce confusion. What would instead reduce confusion even more, is if people made a specific effort to point out that a singular firm is not required for anti trust law to apply. Because this is the most common misconception when people talk about anti trust law. (It is so common that the FTC has to clarify this in their documents!)
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Trust me, no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. When someone says Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, they are aware that macOS and Linux exist as competing operating systems. They don't think that Windows is the only operating system in the world.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. Actually, it is extremely common. It so common that the literal FTC has to put out information to correct this misconception. Just go look at the offical FTC statement. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... Because apparently, the FTC thinks that this is important enough, and a common enough mistake, that they have to correct this common misconception. Also, Do you take back your pervious statements, and agree with me when I said the following then? "Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly" Because if you now agree with me, then great. Because my original statement was that a company has to have significant market power, which you said was incorrect. But it now seems like you agree me with, that all that has to happen is that a company has to have significant market power. It seems like you do not think that I was "incorrect" to point out that only significant market power is required for the Sherman act to apply. So your previous statement, where you said that this was "incorrect", no longer holds. That is great that it seems like you no longer think that my original statement was incorrect, where I said that only significant market power was required.