You've mentioned two companies - Microsoft and Google. Both of these are American companies so they're subject to US competition law in at least their home markets. No other country would have the power to do anything fundamental about their monopoly such as breaking them up. They could only fine them, require them to support competitors, or lesser things like that.
If you want to talk about some other countries, a monopoly is also not illegal in the UK. Again, only abusing the monopoly may be considered illegal.
If you were thinking of a different country's law (which would be odd since you mentioned two US companies) can you name one where a monopoly is by definition illegal?
>You've mentioned two companies - Microsoft and Google. Both of these are American companies so they're subject to US competition law in at least their home markets. No other country would have the power to do anything fundamental about their monopoly such as breaking them up.
That's quite untrue. Any sovereign country can impose whatever restrictions they like on any company they like. That company can withdraw from that country, but in doing so they are giving up on all the income they could get from that country.
They might not be able to force them to break up, but they can certainly force them to either break up or fuck off.
>If you want to talk about some other countries, a monopoly is also not illegal in the UK. Again, only abusing the monopoly may be considered illegal.
You don't seem to understand. By definition, if it isn't abusive, it isn't a monopoly.
> You don't seem to understand. By definition, if it isn't abusive, it isn't a monopoly.
That's not what you said originally. You said 'if it's not illegal, it's not a monopoly' I've shown that it at least is not true in the US and even referred you to a precedent which says that you can have a monopoly that is legal - 'monopoly is not unlawful per se'.
So if you weren't referring to the US, which country do you think your claim is true in?
Could you please undo that?
I don't know this person, but all his arguments are worth discussing, his points are valid, and don't see any other site violation, than the monopoly discussion being of course only a side discussion of Google/Microsoft.
I also don't see any request to stop. His last post on this was 19 hrs ago, you de-attached it 15 hrs ago, and then banned him 15 hrs ago.
Rob Taylor by himself explained how important it is to let discussions happen at PARC. They trained it. RIP
No, they have some good people and a huge amount of money gained from monopolies, which are by definition not legal.