4 ms·
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 tha
by 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 agoDon'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?