On 8/19/2012 5:05 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack wrote:

That is exactly wrong. Without competition, they do not have to
provide a better product. It's one of the problems with capitalism
addressed by the Sherman Anti trust act.

Not true. Not true at all.

Yes, it is true, totally true.

Assume you have a company in a town with 100
prospects. You sell each of the 100 prospects your product your first year
in business. Where does your revenue come from next year? If you don't make
a NEW product to replace the first, you're out of business.

If you make a piece of crap, your out of business, unless you have a
monopoly that makes it close to impossible for competitors to get a foot
in the door.

Secondly, monopolies are GUARANTEED by the US Constitution (Article I,
Section 8).

Limited time exclusive right to the inventor does not mean you have the
right to prevent competition from like products. MS did exactly that,
and were found guilty in court, but apparently learned that huge
political contributions would make their problems go away.

Third, a monopoly that comes into existence and continues by actions solely
within the organization are NOT covered by the Sherman act. A company can
set whatever price it wants for its product or service and nothing illegal
has taken place.

I don't give a damn what MS charges, they sell junk, and they made sure
competing systems could not get a foot in the door.

Only when a company suppresses competition by some external
process (such as buying the competing company) does the Act latch in.

Or threaten business that dare sell competing products with sanction,
among other things.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com