3 ms·
Even if I concede all of this, and I really don’t, that doesn’t imply that it was a concerted effort to make Microsoft in particular a monopoly, at least not in
by tombert 27d ago
Even if I concede all of this, and I really don’t, that doesn’t imply that it was a concerted effort to make Microsoft in particular a monopoly, at least not in the same way that they, for example, made AT&T a monopoly.
Are you suggesting that the existence of laws means that monopolies are inherently government ordained? Great, then that means that the standard oil example still holds.
P.S. you can actually keep replying, there’s just an artificial timer as they get nested. You can actually get around that if you click on the date/time (e.g. “2 hours ago”) and reply directly.
- krupan 27d agoAha! Neat trick to defeat hacker news's attempt to keep us from having long unproductive conversations. Let's keep it going. Does it matter if the government purposely ordained the monopoly or stupidly made it possible by extending copyright protections indefinitely? The government is the problem either way and they shouldn't have that much power!
- pocksuppet 22d agoIt's still government protection which caused Microsoft to be a monopoly. You provide a great example of libertarian goalpost-moving: > Microsoft wasn't protected by the government. > Yes they were, by copyright law. > But the government didn't set out to make Microsoft a monopoly.