- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Loudon Head on January 11, 19100 at 21:03:11:

In Reply to: Wa-hey! posted by Farinata on November 08, 1999 at 16:40:04:

I realize that this string is quite old, but I didn't realize a reply had been addressed to me until now. Even though it probably won't be read, I'll reply anyway. What the hell.

: : Define any market narrowly enough, and you can call it a monopoly. For example, I have a monopoly on me.

: : I've snipped most of your post because, frankly, most of it is entirely beside the point and, while it displays an enviable knowledge of the recent history of computing, betrays the fact that you apparently know zip about economics. The descriptor "non-commercial" (which you added to "competitor" in reference to Linux) is completely meaningless in the context of economic theory and the nature of monopolies. My point was always that unless Microsoft controls 100% of the market (look up "mono" in the dictionary), it's not a monopoly. If it has any competitors, whether they are "commercial" or "non-commercial" (to adopt your arbitrary wording), it's not a monopoly.

: Well, I don't agree with you, and neither does the law; perhaps you'd care to redefine your definition of "monopoly" away from the dictionary and towards the actual usage more.

No, I wouldn't care to do that. The "law" (acutally, the current government,) is well-known for saying some pretty stupid things. My only concern is with the economic definition of monopoly, which is the only definition that has any concrete, constant meaning and practical use (other than the practical use of arbitrarily beating up on successful companies.)

: Microsoft "has a monopoly, has used monopoly, and has harmed consumers,", according to the US justice system.

: Perhaps you'd like to argue it out with the DoJ?

I sure would.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup