3 ms·
> I don't see that as evidence of monopoly erosion. If I were you, I would want to avoid describing Wolfram's present circumstances as a monopoly. The word has
by lutusp 13y ago
> I don't see that as evidence of monopoly erosion.
If I were you, I would want to avoid describing Wolfram's present circumstances as a monopoly. The word has certain legal implications one would do well to avoid.
- gfodor 13y agomonopolies aren't illegal.
- lutusp 13y agoDepending on how one gets in that position, Of course they are. http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-illegal-monopoly http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-illegal-monopoly
- gfodor 13y agono. that web page is terrible. a company having a monopoly is just a state-of-affairs that be used as a justification for prosecuting certain actions that company takes. having a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly in the PC operating system market, not of having a monopoly in the PC operating system market which was all but self-evident at the time and not a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
- lutusp 13y ago> a company having a monopoly is just a state-of-affairs ... The legal issues turn on how the monopoly was acquired, not its mere existence. In any case, my original point was that it's unwise to describe one's company's position as a monopoly -- it sounds predatory, and it can only attract the attention of corporate lawyers.