Arthur S. Alexion on Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:39:41 -0500 |
Monopolies are like horseshoes and hand grenades. You can do a lot of damage, just by getting close. Its not an absolute thing. Courts look to two things: (1) do you so dominate a market that you can distort it by manipulating supply and demand and (2) have you used that power over the market to impede competition? Note that "dominate" does not mean that you are the only player, it just means that you can act like it. Note also that "impede" competition does not mean that competition does not theoretically exist, it just means that you can prevent *meaningful* competition. It is not about absolutes. Art At 08:11 PM 2/17/2002 -0500, Jon Galt wrote: Well I'm probably going to astound some people here by claiming that the arguments below do not prove that Microsoft violated any law. I'm not arguing with Sam or anybody else here. I understand that some courts have ruled that Microsoft violated some law or other, but I disagree with any nutball judge, who probably doesn't know his ass from a parallel port, who claims that Microsoft has a monopoly in anything. _____________________________________________________________________ Art Alexion mailto:arthur@alexion.com Arthur S. Alexion LLC http://www.alexion.com ---<>--- Click http://signature.coola.com/?arthur@alexion.com to put me in your Palm Address Book
|
|