An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market
You're acting like Microsoft was the only choice.
In what could to grow into a class action in US courts, a Chinese woman is suing the Federal Reserve after discovering that the real value of the USD250 she put in an account in 2006 had shrunk by 30%. She claims it was the result of the Fed issuing too much money, and as The South China Morning Post reports, her son Li Zhen, the lawyer, called the lawsuit "litigation for the public good". Alleging "abuse of monopoly in issuing currency," the People's Court of Kunming has yet to rule on the litigants' demand that the Fed cease-and-desist from its quantitative easing policy. While this may seem frivolous, there are some interesting points being made that bear watching, as Li notes, since "the Fed is private institution which enjoys monopoly over the issuing of currency, US Dollar holders can sue it for printing too much money."
You simply don't get the concept that simple existence of "some competition" doesn't mean it's a not a monopoly capable of anti-competitive effects which are detrimental to consumers.
For example you think obscure and highly technologically knowledge required to installing Linux distros was a competitive alternative to Windows.
Since you can't seem to grasp that elementary concept, (which by the way is the basis for decades of anti trust law and decisions) there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
quote:So when they were found to have a monopoly by a court and MSFT agreed to unbundle their browswer and allow other browsers to be placed on PCs at the point of sale they weren't really a monopoly?
To enforce their non existence monopoly? None.
quote:What percent of the market would constitute "control and dominance"?
I don't think they realize that we're arguing that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.
Do they have a word for that? It's not monopoly.
The phenomenal popularity of the personal computer (PC) in the 1980s and 1990s catapulted Microsoft Corporation past manufacturing corporations as a preeminent business organization in the United States and the world. With the explosion of interest in the Internet in the mid-1990s, Microsoft moved aggressively to market its Internet Explorer (IE) web browser and to crush its competitor, Netscape. Having already secured a monopoly with its Windows Operating System, Microsoft seemed poised to dominate Internet software. However, in 1998, 19 state attorneys general joined the U.S. Justice Department in filing an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. The suit alleged that the software company forced computer manufacturers (known as original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to license and distribute Microsoft's IE in exchange for the right to pre-install Microsoft's Windows 95 operating system on new PCs. Microsoft contended that IE was an integral part of Windows 95 and that it could not be separated without causing the operating system as a whole to malfunction. The plaintiffs argued that Microsoft was engaged in an illegal Tying Arrangement, by conditioning the purchase of a popular product (Windows 95) on the purchase of an additional, unrelated product
The case came to trial in October 1998 before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Pen-field Jackson, sitting without a jury. Jackson ruled for the plaintiffs in November 1999, finding that the facts fully justified the conclusion that Microsoft had sought monopoly power through illegal means. He appointed Chief Judge richard a. posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to mediate the case, in hopes of bringing the bitter conflict to a quick conclusion. However, Posner could not broker a settlement, and Jackson issued his final order in April 2000. He ordered that Microsoft be split into two companies and that the companies desist from monopolistic conduct. A federal appeals court overturned this decision in June 2001. Although the panel agreed that Microsoft had engaged in monopolistic practices, it found that Judge Jackson had committed misconduct by making derogatory comments about Microsoft. The case was sent back to another district court judge, who encouraged new settlement talks. In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice and the states agreed to a settlement in which Microsoft did not have to split apart. Instead, Microsoft agreed to allow OEMs and consumers to add and remove access to certain Windows features and to set defaults for competing software. Microsoft also made available to software developers a host of software interfaces and tools at no charge, to allow the developers to write Windows applications
quote:What other company in the U.S. has 90% market share in its industry?
Do they have a word for that?
I thought MLB was actually exempt and NFL just hasn't been tested.
According to MacCambridge, as Rozelle and Boggs walked to the Capitol Rotunda, Rozelle said he did not know how to thank Boggs.
“What do you mean you don’t know how to thank me?” Boggs said. “New Orleans gets an immediate franchise in the N.F.L.”
Rozelle waffled ever so little, saying he would do everything he could.
“Well, we can always call off the vote while you — ” Boggs said.
“It’s a deal, Congressman,” Rozelle said. “You’ll get your franchise.”
Government is a monopoly. Medical insurance companies operate in state monopoly markets.