Not exactly alike, as you won’t be working both jobs at once.
Maybe I work at a full time day job and also do free lance work. Or maybe I got two jobs. Perhaps I am in a job where I get clients, say that I am a lawyer for example, I can “boast” about my credentials and experience in order to atract new customers. I don’t see how this is “unfair” or worse…illegal.
I’m no lawyer but I believe the idea is merely to prevent a company from completely dominating an industry, in such a way that they control both the vertical and horizontal markets.
But dominating an insustry or some area of an industry is the goal of every company. All software and hardware makers build their products with the hope that everyone uses them. Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, etc all want to dominate their respective markets, all of them want everyone using their products. It is the very reason why they make and sell products in the first place.
When abstracted, monopoly abuse doesn’t sound that bad but in practice it stagnates a market and tends to prevent innovation.
It can happen, sure, but it is not a logical consequence of a monopoly. Goverment dictating how companies make and sell their products sounds more harmful to competition and innovation to me, than allowing companies to compete freely.
Because there are laws against it. That makes it illegal.
Hmm, I think there has to be some rationale behind it other than just “there are laws against it”. Just because there is a law against something it does not means that the law is good or even valid.
Using a monopoly to an unfair advantage in other markets is bad. And illegal.
Bad for whom? For competitors? Absolutely, and that is the idea behind the word “competition”. That is why those are the only people who complain to antitrust lawyers, so that they can achieve for them what they themselves cannot achieve in a free market (read: compete and succeed).
There are two words you used, first: “unfair”. A monopoly status is earned thru hard work and a great deal of investments and resources. Why should a company that has earned this status not be allowed to reap the rewards that comes with having a monopoly in a particular market? How is it unfair?
Granted, there can be questionable practices and abuses, as in everything. But bundling a browser, media player or, to put things in the context of this thread, an alternative to Flash is not an abuse or a questionable practice. It is merely good business practice.
Second, “illegal”. What laws are being broken?
1)Except that you cannot use your position as a corn monopolist to gain market share in the soy bean market,
2)so it’s not OK to tell the tractor manufacturers that you won’t buy their tractors and equipment if they sell to soy bean farmers. That’s abuse of power. Illegal.
There are to separate issues here (I numbered to better deal with them). In answer to the first, why not? If my monopoly in the corn market gives me a way to gain market share in the soy bean market, they it would be dumb not to use that advantage. In fact, it is what anybody in any area would rightfully do.
Number two is a bit more complex as it involves a conflict of interest between two parties. In your example, the company that is threatening to stop buying tractors would end up undermining itself, since it needs tractors to product what it sells. This single issue (number 2) could expand into a whole thread since it involves many things. The example you used may be an instance of abuse of monopoly status, tho, I would not call it illegal(what law has been broken?).
There are other cases which are very similar but that are legitimate. For example, Microsoft offers Windows to PC manufacturers at a special price if they agree to not install additional software like say Firefox, iTunes, Flash, etc. I think this is not an abuse of power or coercion on the part of Microsoft.
[Hmm, I think there has to be some rationale behind it other than just “there are laws against it”. Just because there is a law against something it does not means that the law is good or even valid.
You’re gonna have to give up the ghost on this one, ditto. There is rationale behind abuse of monopoly laws, but you’re just not agreeing with them. Perhaps if you had been Netscape when Microsoft illegally abused their monopoly position and provided a competing browser bundled with Windows you would have viewed the law a bit differently.
True, just because there is a law against something doesn’t mean the law is good or valid. In this case, the laws (against abuse of power by monopolies) are both good and valid.
Microsoft executives may not agree with the characterization, but the company is a convicted abuser. The company’s main success came from abuse of power. Look how Microsoft fares in markets where they don’t have the opportunity to abuse, torture, or coerce customers and vendors. They fail.
Windows and Office dominance came from Microsoft’s abuse of the system. What since then? Windows and Office remain successful, though both are losing market share. What other major efforts have met with success? Xbox360? Puhleeze!
Bad for whom? For competitors? Absolutely, and that is the idea behind the word “competition”. That is why those are the only people who complain to antitrust lawyers, so that they can achieve for them what they themselves cannot achieve in a free market (read: compete and succeed).
You have hit upon the reason for Microsoft’s conviction and the unfair part. Probably the cleanest example is the part of the EU conviction where they used their desktop OS monopoly to prevent other companies from competing in a free server software market. Because they would not reveal, or even license, the same information about how Windows communicates with servers that they used to writetheir own server software, other companies could not create server software that worked as well with Windows as MS server software. So there isn’t really any free market competiion going on.
In my previous post I used this example: Had MS not wanted to make server software, they would have licensed or freely disseminated all the details about Windows networking so that it would work well with as many different servers as possible. Instead, they only wanted it to work well with their own server software. On the surface that doesn’t seem like it should be illegal.
I suppose the tricky part is that things companies can do when they don’t have a monopoly are not permitted when they do have one. If Windows had a 40% market share, with the rest divied among Mac, Linux, maybe a couple other minor players (a resurgence of OS2 or a resurection of Be maybe), then if people didn’t like the fact that Windows didn’t work well with their preferred server, they could just dump Windows for another OS. Both the OS and the server markets would be independent and free markets. But with an OS monopoly, people are not, for all practical purposes, free to dump Windows. And MS used that monopoly in the OS, along with information about how to make server software work with Windows that was not available to other developers, to try to create a new monopoly in server software.
There wasn’t any free market. Other developers could not compete and succeed on their merits now matter how good they were. They had to make their server software work with Windows, because Windows had an OS monopoly. But they couldn’t because MS would not reveal how to do it. And MS used the info about Windows that no other developer had in order to try to make the only server software that would work with Windows.
If anything, this has been an interesting thread that has really brought up some good questions about free markets and competition.
There is rationale behind abuse of monopoly laws, but you’re just not agreeing with them.
Well, what is this the rationale behind antitrust laws?
The company’s main success came from abuse of power.
How did Microsoft obtain it’s “power” in the first place? Thru competition, by beating it’s rivals with better products, strategies, marketing or prices. There is really no “abuse” of power here, there are just actions that are beneficial to some and detrimental to others. Something that is inevitable in a free market. Microsoft, just as any company and any person in it’s right mind, would act in a manner that is in accord with it’s own interests.
Look how Microsoft fares in markets where they don’t have the opportunity to abuse, torture, or coerce customers and vendors. They fail.
This is of course, besides the point. That Microsoft sucks at making some products and is unable to compete in other markets is not relevant to the issue of antitrust and of companies having the right to make and sell their products in a manner that is in accord with their own interests.
Windows and Office dominance came from Microsoft’s abuse of the system.
How did Microsoft abuse the system so that Windows and Office obtain a dominant position in the market?
Well, what is this the rationale behind antitrust laws?
You’re beating a dead horse. Google or Wikipedia antitrust. There’s all kinds of examples in US Law
How did Microsoft obtain it’s “power” in the first place? Thru competition, by beating it’s rivals with better products, strategies, marketing or prices. There is really no “abuse” of power here, there are just actions that are beneficial to some and detrimental to others. Something that is inevitable in a free market. Microsoft, just as any company and any person in it’s right mind, would act in a manner that is in accord with it’s own interests.
As was stated earlier, a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft did not obtain monopoly status by standard means—better products, strategies, marketing, or prices. Microsoft is a criminal company which abused vendors, left customers with crummy products, coerced customers and vendors to obtain leverage with market share. They were convicted of a number of abuses.
You may not agree or like the facts but they are there.
This is of course, besides the point. That Microsoft sucks at making some products and is unable to compete in other markets is not relevant to the issue of antitrust and of companies having the right to make and sell their products in a manner that is in accord with their own interests.
Yes, they worked in accord with their own interests—not the interests of the customer or their vendors, and did so illegally on many occasions.
How did Microsoft abuse the system so that Windows and Office obtain a dominant position in the market?
How many times do you have to have it explained to you? Google a bit. Wikipedia a bit. The facts are there.
Once Microsoft reached a dominant market share with DOS, later with Windows (there were many OSs back in those days—Mac, DR-DOS, CP/M, other versions of DOS), they employed bullying, coercing tactics to require vendors to pay for Windows whether it shipped on their PCs or not. They also required vendors to ship a certain percentage of PCs with Office—all of which are abuses of power. They were charged and convicted for many of those abuses.
In market areas where Microsoft cannot resort to bullying tactics, they fare badly. Game consoles? Big money loser. Music players? Big money loser, no market share to speak of.
All bullys fall. Microsoft is falling. Watch it with shock and awe.
I suppose the tricky part is that things companies can do when they don’t have a monopoly are not permitted when they do have one. If Windows had a 40% market share, with the rest divied among Mac, Linux, maybe a couple other minor players (a resurgence of OS2 or a resurection of Be maybe), then if people didn’t like the fact that Windows didn’t work well with their preferred server, they could just dump Windows for another OS. Both the OS and the server markets would be independent and free markets. But with an OS monopoly, people are not, for all practical purposes, free to dump Windows. And MS used that monopoly in the OS, along with information about how to make server software work with Windows that was not available to other developers, to try to create a new monopoly in server software.
Of course, Microsoft benefitted from the need business has for standardization. Unlike automobiles, where there is no monopoly or ‘standard’ per se, business needs certain standards and adopting the dominant defact standard was a good choice for business and Microsoft, which gave them a monopoly position, but changed the rules of engagement. Imagine how much trouble there would be in the electronics world if each community had 4 or 5 power supplies, all with different voltages, amperage, service connections, and prices. Yes, it would be a free market, but it would also be a disaster for the customer.
There wasn’t any free market. Other developers could not compete and succeed on their merits now matter how good they were. They had to make their server software work with Windows, because Windows had an OS monopoly. But they couldn’t because MS would not reveal how to do it. And MS used the info about Windows that no other developer had in order to try to make the only server software that would work with Windows.
That’s a superb outline of the problems inherent with monopolistic position and abuse of power.
For delivery of letters, the US Postal Service has a legal monopoly. Only the USPS can deliver letters. Packages? Different story, though some say the USPS engages in abuse of power.
Not exactly alike, as you won’t be working both jobs at once.
Maybe I work at a full time day job and also do free lance work. Or maybe I got two jobs. Perhaps I am in a job where I get clients, say that I am a lawyer for example, I can “boast” about my credentials and experience in order to atract new customers. I don’t see how this is “unfair” or worse…illegal.
By at once I was referring to simultaneously. As in two places at once.
ditto - 23 April 2007 09:19 PM
It can happen, sure, but it is not a logical consequence of a monopoly. Goverment dictating how companies make and sell their products sounds more harmful to competition and innovation to me, than allowing companies to compete freely.
d
When a company has a monopoly and a competitor enters the market the company has two options for competition. They can either use their market inertia to compete, or compete on a product level. In their own market, either option is legal, even though the first obviously has a stagnating effect (this is not really open for argument; historically this has been proven, even where a company may desire to innovate). In new markets related to the original monopoly, only the second option is viable, and largely these laws are in place because of our country’s fairly bad history with abusive economic forces (steel industry, oil, railroads, telephony, etc.). The over-riding idea is not to allow established companies too much of a head start over companies that establish new markets.
I get your point in that it’s not really a black and white right/wrong scenario, but the point to keep in mind is that the law is there not so much to punish but to regulate. Our economy does not stay stable without feedback from the government, and this is one of the feedback parameters.
The anti-trust laws protect more than just new companies as well, they protect the economy overall. MS is currently in the death throes of an inertial crisis similar to IBM’s in the mainframe days, or DEC’s, or Wang’s after that, and if they are allowed to they will put the market in shackles to delay the process changes happening in their markets (since they are unable to move with the market and arguably that started at least 5 years ago). If Microsoft were successful in defending itself in this way, it would severely weaken the US economy as a whole in relation to foreign competitors.
I noticed that Google plans to add H.264 video to YouTube, though it’s somewhat unclear whether YouTube will drop Flash videos.
Flash is capable of higher resolution but still pales in comparison to H.264 and QuickTime. What’s also unclear is whether YouTube will run Flash and H.264 videos at the same time for each clip, or is this a full on switch to H.264?
I prefer the latter. Here at school we’ve stopped using Flash altogether.
Flash for video delivery has always seemed odd to me… the players are bad, unresponsive, and to get the same quality as any of the alternatives there is substantially higher CPU overhead. The comments I saw re YouTube said that they would be slowly rolling out H.264 content, and go H.264 only sometime in 2008.
(Anybody else experiencing wonkiness in the forums?)
page loads erroring out, specifically right after I log in, and the fast reply at the time was telling me that I hadn’t filled the username/password fields.
page loads erroring out, specifically right after I log in, and the fast reply at the time was telling me that I hadn’t filled the username/password fields.
Hmmmm. Curious. There’s nothing new on this end, and the last update to EE code was back in early May. The Forums are not cached, which is different than the rest of the site’s pages. I’m not running into anything odd, and I’m in and out on the site/forums multiple times during the day.
To be on the safe side I just ran a Repair/Optimize of the database. If it continues, try a different browser to see if you can replicate the same issues.
