4 ms·
I don't disagree, but monopolies are generally unstable. HP and Microsoft are hardly dictating terms anymore. Their ability to erect barriers to entry is weak,
by mwsherman 15y ago
I don't disagree, but monopolies are generally unstable. HP and Microsoft are hardly dictating terms anymore. Their ability to erect barriers to entry is weak, unless they are getting help from the gov't. See telecoms & utilities.
Antitrust is often ineffective in practice. Sounds great in theory, but it is also a form of central planning. The best the gov't can do, in my opinion, is reduce the barriers to entry that it itself erects. Highly regulated environments, for example, usually protect incumbents.
- _delirium 15y agoI agree when it comes to the headline enforcement actions (breakups, etc.), which are done in a pretty haphazard way with questionable effectiveness. But I think the existence of the body of law does discourage the most egregious types of monopoly-protection activities. For example, few companies will do things that look too much like outright dumping, stuff like giving your product away for free for 12 months in order to crush your new startup competitor who's secured 12 months of funding.
- mwsherman 15y agoThat example doesn't bother me too much, though there are plenty of smart folks who would disagree. I don't like IE's dominance, which dates back to exactly what you describe (vs Netscape). But the outcome is that the Internet became a mass phenomenon. I don't think it would obviously have been so if Netscape and MS charged for browsers. Heck, companies used to charge for TCP/IP stacks. Dumping looks pro-consumer in this context.