4 ms·
It's pretty much a definitional requirement for fair competition that competitors must be good enough to be competitive. A monopoly does not mean literally zer
by bleepblorp 6y ago
It's pretty much a definitional requirement for fair competition that competitors must be good enough to be competitive.
A monopoly does not mean literally zero competition; it need only mean no competitors that are good enough to be viable.
- supernova87a 6y agoWait, I am very interested to know this condition. Not only does a Google or Intel or whoever need to not artificially prevent competition, it has to ensure that its competitors offer actually good alternatives? How can you put a responsibility on a party for the capabilities of someone else?
- srtjstjsj 6y agoGoogle doesn't have to ensure, the government does.
- bleepblorp 6y agoLegally, no. Monopolies do not generally need to aid their competitors to the point that they produce viable products. At times, however, monopolies do provide token support to competitors to reduce the risk of anti-trust enforcement. See, for example, Microsoft supporting Apple in the 1990s and Google supporting Mozilla. Definitionally, companies without viable competitors are monopolies. Microsoft still has a defacto monopoly on PC operating systems as Linux isn't a viable choice for 95%+ of PC users. This market situation is extremely detrimental to consumers but isn't illegal.
- supernova87a 6y agoWell here then is yet another layer of complication. Linux has many more features than Windows, gives the user more control, respects privacy better, and is free even, yet consumers choose not to use it. How far must a company or government go to create competition where the behavior of both the suppliers and consumers indicate otherwise?
- gbear605 6y agoHaving a monopoly isn’t illegal. Using a monopoly to give you market power in another area is illegal. Windows can have a monopoly perfectly legally, they just can’t use that monopoly to give themselves a monopoly on, say, web browsers.