5 ms·
Making a must-have product doesn’t constitute being an anti-competitive monopolist. Coca Cola isn’t a monopolist because classic coke just tastes so good and y
by faeriechangling 2y ago
Making a must-have product doesn’t constitute being an anti-competitive monopolist. Coca Cola isn’t a monopolist because classic coke just tastes so good and yet they refuse to share the recipe with Pepsi Cola.
Anti-competitiveness is more leveraging the must-have nature of CUDA to shelter Nvidia from competition. E.G. an OEM can’t sell professional laptops that support CUDA if it sells AMD gaming laptops or something - just to illustrate. Or Coca Cola refusing to sell coke to a store that also sells Pepsi causing the store to not stock Pepsi.
Monopoly law isn’t meant to simply punish success and exclusivity.
- shmerl 2y agoIt's not about a must have. It's about a must have being tied to them. That tying is what's harming the market by preventing interoperability. It only makes sense to prevent such kind of traps. I.e. a must have can be a must have without artificially added tying (lock-in) detail. Then it's not causing harm.