Soleron said:
For whether something is or is not a monopoly I look to regulator's interpretations, not textbooks. Microsoft has already been subject to penalties over its effective market control. Intel was also charged with monopoly abuse over CPUs, despite only having 2/3 of the market and with AMD's offerings being a drop-in replacement (Linux and Mac are in no way drop-in replacements for Windows). |
Where do these regulators get their "interpretations?"
Oligopolies can control markets as well. Microsoft doesn't have to have a monopoly to have market power.
At the end of the day it gets silly, when a group of a few hundred/thousand people have arbitrary power to define terms and institute de-facto legislation.
Anti-monopoly laws get especially silly when they are in their "anti-competitive" mode, when regulators punish companies for actually making their products better or their prices lower because it is seen as "anti-competitive" when in fact that is the purpose of competition - so that companies who make their products better get an advantage.







