7 ms·

Even though the intent of this article is good, I dislike that the article starts out with the false premise that monopolies exist on the internet. A majority o

Even though the intent of this article is good, I dislike that the article starts out with the false premise that monopolies exist on the internet. A majority or even dominant market share does not imply that a monopoly exists. A monopoly is properly defined by the lack of an ability to introduce competing options. If it was illegal to build another search engine or competing social network, then a monopoly would exist. There are clearly competing options for all of these services and it is legal to introduce competitors, therefore, no monopoly exists.

gruseom 13y ago
By your standard, Microsoft was never a monopolist.
- throwaway420 13y ago
  You would need to define a monopoly differently than I to view Microsoft as a monopoly.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    According to the US antitrust laws, Microsoft was found to be a monopoly that abused its power contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act. In that lawsuit Microsoft's position as a monopoly was barely questioned, the lawsuit being about whether or not Microsoft abused its monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... The definition of a monopoly is of course, an entity that lacks economic competition. Having 90% of a market qualifies.
    - throwaway420 13y ago
      * Your statement about a monopoly being defined as an entity that lacks economic competition and then clarifying that owning 90% of a market qualifies is an obvious contradiction. * Legally speaking, you are correct that the government defined Microsoft as a monopoly. The government can use laws and edicts to define "monopoly" in any arbitrary way that it wants to. If the government declared that 80% ownership or even 51% ownership of a market was a monopoly, legally they would consider themselves to be correct. But this fact does not necessarily imply that their definition is objectively correct and based on a proper understanding of economics.
      - bad_user 13y ago
        Considering this is an absolutely huge global market, which includes countries that have an aversion towards anything made in U.S. - and considering that more than 90% global market share really means 100% in local markets, Microsoft's Windows monopoly has been one of the biggest and most powerful in human history, being actually a textbook example in economics courses. Many other historical monopolies were only local. It's also a well known fact that Bill Gates invested in Apple in 1997 and ported MS Office to Mac OS to keep their main competitor (that was also largely irrelevant in 1997) from dying. Bill Gates is one hell of a strategist and this happened before the anti-trust case being brought against them. Bill Gates foresaw that with Apple dead, they'd be in one hell of a rough spot. Don't weasel your way out of a broken definition by hiding yourself behind phrases such as "legally speaking". In the making of those laws the legislators do have good input from economics researchers. Sometimes laws are inaccurate, but they sure as hell beat an individual's personal feelings.
bad_user 13y ago
You're talking about government-granted monopolies. Those aren't the only monopolies around - there are also: 1) natural monopolies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly 2) monopolies (or oligopolies) that happen due to anti-competitive strategies, such as controlling supply and demand through price fixing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
dthtvwls 13y ago
You're thinking of an artificial monopoly.

gruseom 13y ago

By your standard, Microsoft was never a monopolist.

throwaway420 13y ago
You would need to define a monopoly differently than I to view Microsoft as a monopoly.
- bad_user 13y ago
  According to the US antitrust laws, Microsoft was found to be a monopoly that abused its power contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act. In that lawsuit Microsoft's position as a monopoly was barely questioned, the lawsuit being about whether or not Microsoft abused its monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... The definition of a monopoly is of course, an entity that lacks economic competition. Having 90% of a market qualifies.
  - throwaway420 13y ago
    * Your statement about a monopoly being defined as an entity that lacks economic competition and then clarifying that owning 90% of a market qualifies is an obvious contradiction. * Legally speaking, you are correct that the government defined Microsoft as a monopoly. The government can use laws and edicts to define "monopoly" in any arbitrary way that it wants to. If the government declared that 80% ownership or even 51% ownership of a market was a monopoly, legally they would consider themselves to be correct. But this fact does not necessarily imply that their definition is objectively correct and based on a proper understanding of economics.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      Considering this is an absolutely huge global market, which includes countries that have an aversion towards anything made in U.S. - and considering that more than 90% global market share really means 100% in local markets, Microsoft's Windows monopoly has been one of the biggest and most powerful in human history, being actually a textbook example in economics courses. Many other historical monopolies were only local. It's also a well known fact that Bill Gates invested in Apple in 1997 and ported MS Office to Mac OS to keep their main competitor (that was also largely irrelevant in 1997) from dying. Bill Gates is one hell of a strategist and this happened before the anti-trust case being brought against them. Bill Gates foresaw that with Apple dead, they'd be in one hell of a rough spot. Don't weasel your way out of a broken definition by hiding yourself behind phrases such as "legally speaking". In the making of those laws the legislators do have good input from economics researchers. Sometimes laws are inaccurate, but they sure as hell beat an individual's personal feelings.

bad_user 13y ago

You're talking about government-granted monopolies. Those aren't the only monopolies around - there are also: 1) natural monopolies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly 2) monopolies (or oligopolies) that happen due to anti-competitive strategies, such as controlling supply and demand through price fixing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

dthtvwls 13y ago

You're thinking of an artificial monopoly.