3 ms·

>They had an illegally acquired monopoly on the OS. Therefore they were not free to use this monopoly to reach into other areas. Are you saying Google's monopo

by tsotha 14y ago

>They had an illegally acquired monopoly on the OS. Therefore they were not free to use this monopoly to reach into other areas. Are you saying Google's monopoly on the search engine is any different? I mean, technically it's not a monopoly, but Microsoft didn't technically have a monopoly either - there were a half-dozen other operating systems people were using. Apple, Beos, Next, etc. And how did Microsoft "illegally acquire" a monopoly and Google didn't? Did Google just fall into theirs?

saalweachter 14y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I feel comfortable making a moral judgement that there are ethical and unethical business practices, and a world of difference between a company which dominates by providing the best product and a company which dominates by destroying its competition. Heck, I'd even claim there is a third type of monopoly, an economy of scale monopoly, where a company dominates because its size allows it to profitably sell cheaper than any smaller competitor. It's winning because its big, not because it's good, even if it isn't sending lawyers after its competitors or selling at a loss to run competition out of business. I'll also agree that no matter the basis of the monopoly every company must be watched carefully to ensure it doesn't start abusing its power, but I still think it is reasonable to consider how a company got to be a monopoly.
- tsotha 14y ago
  ...a world of difference between a company which dominates by providing the best product and a company which dominates by destroying its competition. So what did Microsoft do to destroy its competition that Google didn't?
  - saalweachter 14y ago
    To avoid speculating irresponsibly myself, I'll link to someone else's irresponsible speculation: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1298667420478086 http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1298667420478086

by tsotha 14y ago

saalweachter 14y ago

I am not a lawyer, but I feel comfortable making a moral judgement that there are ethical and unethical business practices, and a world of difference between a company which dominates by providing the best product and a company which dominates by destroying its competition. Heck, I'd even claim there is a third type of monopoly, an economy of scale monopoly, where a company dominates because its size allows it to profitably sell cheaper than any smaller competitor. It's winning because its big, not because it's good, even if it isn't sending lawyers after its competitors or selling at a loss to run competition out of business. I'll also agree that no matter the basis of the monopoly every company must be watched carefully to ensure it doesn't start abusing its power, but I still think it is reasonable to consider how a company got to be a monopoly.

tsotha 14y ago
...a world of difference between a company which dominates by providing the best product and a company which dominates by destroying its competition. So what did Microsoft do to destroy its competition that Google didn't?
- saalweachter 14y ago
  To avoid speculating irresponsibly myself, I'll link to someone else's irresponsible speculation: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1298667420478086 http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1298667420478086