3 ms·

Why would it be hard? All you need to do is express it conditionally: if you have a monopoly in some market, then you can't... This is exactly what the Sherm

by pohl 17y ago

Why would it be hard? All you need to do is express it conditionally: if you have a monopoly in some market, then you can't... This is exactly what the Sherman Antitrust Act did. If your interest is genuine, you can always read the Conclusions Of Law document from the case. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm If you're also curious how the conditional was met, read the Findings Of Fact. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

byrneseyeview 17y ago
Because you have to define a "market". If a product has no substitutes at all, you're right that it's a monopolized market -- but it's also clearly a market that couldn't exist without the company that's producing the product, and didn't exist until that company did produce the product -- so no matter what they charge, the change in consumer utility must be zero or positive.
- pohl 17y ago
  Don't take my phrasing too literally. "Market" was my term. I wasn't quoting the law and I am not a lawyer. From scanning the FoF document that I linked to, it appears that the appropriate jargon is "relevant market", and it appears that an utter lack of substitutes is not the criterion. Rather, look at the following from section III: "33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    "it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market" Weren't people complaining exactly about 7's pricing?

by pohl 17y ago

byrneseyeview 17y ago

Because you have to define a "market". If a product has no substitutes at all, you're right that it's a monopolized market -- but it's also clearly a market that couldn't exist without the company that's producing the product, and didn't exist until that company did produce the product -- so no matter what they charge, the change in consumer utility must be zero or positive.

pohl 17y ago
Don't take my phrasing too literally. "Market" was my term. I wasn't quoting the law and I am not a lawyer. From scanning the FoF document that I linked to, it appears that the appropriate jargon is "relevant market", and it appears that an utter lack of substitutes is not the criterion. Rather, look at the following from section III: "33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market" Weren't people complaining exactly about 7's pricing?