Re: keyboard/mouse programming


"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2jC3j.3572$fl7.3555@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:
Perhaps I'm understanding things differently. A small company
with 1/10 of the US's market share for their product can be
engaging in anti-competitive business practices. Are they
a monopolist? If a national corporation controls 5/10 of the
US's market share for their industry, then no...

Legally establishing a monopoly in the US is based on "market
power", usually practically interpreted as pricing power:
if the firm increases its' price arbitrarily, can it make it
stick or will competitors force prices back down?


Using competitors ability to push down prices as a determinant of
establishing that a corporation is a monopoly seems a bit "flaky" to me.
Competitors prices can only push down the prices of substitutable goods. It
won't push down non-substitutable goods such as luxury items. Due to the
existence of Linux, it can be claimed that Windows is a luxury item,
non-substitutable, and not a monopolistic good. Prior to the large market
share of Linux (say '96 or so...), it could've been legitimately claimed
that there was no other non-Microsoft operating system choice for PC's but
Windows (DOS is an MS choice). All that "pricing power" proves is that
there is either demand for the product or a shortage of the product. It
doesn't prove "why"... There are many valid reasons why a product has
"pricing power": supply, demand, branding, quality, cost, location,
non-substitutable item - luxury good, etc.

If found guilty of being a monopolist, the courts could order
them to terminate all business permanently and dismantle
their corporation.

Certainly not! At least not under US law.

NFL, Great A&P Tea, AT&T...?

US law recognizes this and does not ban monopolies per se.

Seems like a legal system interpretation... Probably violates the intent of
the law. Just how do you "monopolize" without actually being a monopoly or
becoming a monopoly in the process? They'd have to have redefined
"monopolize" to mean something like "engage in anti-competitive
behavior"...

It does,
however, restrict monopolies from behaving "badly", especially in
attempting to expand the monopoly. Only if the monopoly defies
these will it order punishments like break-up. Like jail, these
are stupid and wasteful but necessary in the face of non-compliance.


Prior to globalization when the US was the primary large economy, this made
sense. The US government could regulate the entire market. They could
claim that breaking up companies in order to create competition and reduce
costs benefits the economy. It was probably actually a negative effect.
It'd reduce consumers costs for the product, reduce the employee salaries in
the broken up company, eliminate jobs in the broken up company, reduce
government taxes on the monopolies business income, and eliminate income
taxes on the jobless former employees. It seems like an expensive trade-off
to me. Unfortunately, with globalization, there are many economic players,
both government based and not, who aren't subject to US laws. In this
scenario, restricting the growth of a US monopoly only accomplishes one
thing: capture of market share by non-US entities, likely to be monopolies.

Basically, we declare "our" US monopoly to be "bad" and impede its growth.
The US loses jobs, revenue, taxes. The offshore "foreign" monopoly gains
revenue, jobs, doesn't have any growth restrictions, or any anti-trust laws
to prevent it's monopolization of the market. Evently, "our" monopoly can't
generate as much profit "their" monopoly and goes out of business. We're
killing our own companies and economy. Just like we're selling our own
companies to foreigners because of the high gas prices...

Under US law, Intel has a monopoly on x86 CPUs. (AMD might too!
more than one is allowed). There have been violations, but mostly
it behaves and there is no talk of breakup. MS has a monopoly
on PC operating systems. It frequently violates (and nearly so)
US competition law, so there is talk of break-up.


I'm surprised you mentioned Intel. I've (basically) been following the
prices of computing hardware for decades. The lowest cost hardware always
wins, with only a rare few exceptions, i.e., Intel, SCSI, etc. AMD sells
very well to people who build their own PC's and has for at least a decade.
AMD seems to compete very well with Intel on performance and price. Fast
AMD cpu's are currently bought by PC gamers, low power AMD cpu's are
currently bought by companies for their servers, and yet, despite numerous
competitive advantages of AMD's cpu's, AMD hasn't been able to outperform
Intel... Currently, they have what, a 4 billion something loss? It begs
the question: "Just who is buying so many Intel cpu's as to push AMD out of
the market? And, why are they buying Intel cpu's when they aren't as
advantageous, especially on price?" I.e., why does Intel have all the
pricing power and AMD have none for substitutable goods? The brand can't
possibly contribute that much market share... If it does, then it's
intangible value is huge and it's shares are probably undervalued at 5 times
sales. On the other hand, AMD is probably massively undervalued (but has
lost a huge amount money) at 1 times sales.


Rod Pemberton

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Migrations
    ... particular model with "Windows, Linux, or BeOS" they lose a million ... If a competitor looks like gaining market share they simply buy them, ... MS wanted a share of the entertainment business, ... monopolies. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Ignorance Of The Canadian Public On Military Matters
    ... >>>Except that a truly free market tends to be monopolised by a single producer ... >> Monopolies that are not state sanctioned tend not to last very long. ... >> into the market and offer lower prices in order to get a piece of those high ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Fines ?
    ... It's always hard to make it in a market already dominated by big ... The USA would long ago have done what the EU is doing if Microsoft ... If the World Government should become totalitarian, what can be done about it when there is nobody outside to help? ... Capitalism has failed insofar as it hasn't produced a system for stabilising the free market and making monopolies inherently impossible. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: flush the bog with Perrier?
    ... TBH I've yet to see a plausible reason why water has to be supplied by ... Because really, it's a fake market. ... However the faked markets for natural monopolies ... form of private industry no matter how uncompetitive is always better than ...
    (uk.misc)
  • Re: Problems installing FC4 on Dell Optiplex GX620
    ... when any company dominates in a market (because of the ... monopolies or just monopolies. ... With 90% plus market share in the desktop OS market, Microsoft most ... US anti-trust laws of abusing their monopoly power (again, ...
    (Fedora)