The law and commentary (at least in Australia) talks about monopoly a lot, you're right. I just don't think it has the same meaning in IP (which is concerned wi

The law and commentary (at least in Australia) talks about monopoly a lot, you're right. I just don't think it has the same meaning in IP (which is concerned with implementations) as it does in common usage (which is concerned with markets). If IP was done properly (it isn't) Qualcomm wouldn't have a monopoly on cell phone chips - they'd have a monopoly on one specific, non obvious way of doing chips that they had developed (and they'd only have it for a fixed time window). It's semantics but I think the word monopoly is both sensitive and overloaded. This is actually a discussion we had during my law degree, but obviously different countries have different particulars and the point I'm trying to make here is more philosophical than legal.