>
What I was trying to say was MS didn't fit the textbook definition of a monopoly.
<
The gist of your assertion was that MS did not have Monopoly power - and as a result - was not guilty of abusing its monopoly power. The flaw in this argument is that the conclusion relies on a premise that is invalid. Specifically, MS does have monopoly power. Whether it fits a textbook definition of what a monopoly is irrelevant...
<
I wasn't saying they didn't enjoy a competitive advantage over other software vendors. Competitive advantage does not constitute a monopoly.
>
No, but again, this issue is not about a company having a competitive advantage. The issue is about whether a company has abused its power by engaging in anti-comptetitive practices...
>
Its hard to say if consumers would be better off with more competition because MS products are widely available and competively priced. That fact is not characteristic of a monopoly.
>
The more competition there is, the better off consumers will be. Folks confuse competition with a lack of standards. As long as a common framework/guidelines exist, the more folks that are in the market place to innovate new products - the better off the consumer will be. Why folks think one has to come at the expense of the other is beyond me...
Choice - Good
Lack of Choice - Bad
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only