Huh? Isn't that what I said? Monopolies are not illegal. Abusive Monopolies are illegal.
If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.
You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.
Read the Wiki article on the Sherman Act. It is very interesting.
It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors. For example, a monopoly formed by the merger of two big companies may be illegal, no matter what they do afterwards:
"A Section 1 violation has three elements:
1. An agreement
2. which unreasonably restrains competition
3. and which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
I'm very glad that I was incorrect previously. It means that I learned something today. The OP made good and correct points. I'd bet lots of readers got new info from him.
I think I already explained some of this, but the word monopoly is used in the Sherman Act in a fairly archaic way to describe efforts to control markets. This is not the dictionary definition nor the economic definition of monopoly, which if they were the operative ones, would mean the laws would be fundamentally meaningless, since this state frequently exists even with the protection of government.
Scan the Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft. You'll see that the word "monopoly" is nearly always followed by "power," this being the basis for the findings of violations. The judge found that they didn't just have a monopoly, they had monopoly power. He found that they didn't just have monopoly power, they abused it to restrain trade.
So in the Sherman Act, what does the word mean? In what manner or sense is it different from the way the is used today word today by dictionaries and economists?
From my reading of the Sherman Act and a Wiki article, I get the impression that the word monopoly is used in the conventional sense in the act. Seemingly, it is the method of formation which is relevant to whether the monopoly is legal or illegal.
If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.
I think it was my writing "While the language of the Sherman act seems to forbid monopolies of any kind, courts, including the US Supreme court, have interpreted it to mean coercive or abusive monopolies are illegal, but not monopolies in and of themselves." that caused the confusion.
Which, on reading the language, it certainly gives the impression that monopolies are illegal. That's why I used "seems" and further stated that the courts have said this is not the correct interpretation.
Read the Wiki article on the Sherman Act. It is very interesting.
It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors. For example, a monopoly formed by the merger of two big companies may be illegal, no matter what they do afterwards:
"A Section 1 violation has three elements:
1. An agreement
2. which unreasonably restrains competition
3. and which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
I'm very glad that I was incorrect previously. It means that I learned something today. The OP made good and correct points. I'd bet lots of readers got new info from him.
As you wrote, "It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors."
As Milmoss has pointed out, that is the critical point.
Hello? As I've said several times now, the language of the antitrust laws does not prohibit monopolies. They were never intended to do so. What they were designed to do is prohibit abuse of monopoly power. A basic concept, essential to understanding what is legal and what is illegal under the law. For example:
One of the first antitrust complaints brought against Microsoft was over their so-called "CPU tax." For many years Microsoft required all OEMs who wanted to bundle Microsoft's OS with their computers to pay Microsoft a license for every computer they sold, whether or not the computer included the OS. This created a situation wherein any computer sold with a competing OS installed would still have to pay Microsoft a license fee for that computer. It was not illegal for Microsoft to have the monopoly power to force the OEMs into accepting this arrangement, but it was illegal for them to actually take advantage of that power, and create the artificial barrier to competition.
Get it? I hope this distinction isn't too subtle, because it's critical.
Please read the Wiki article on the Sherman Act. I'd love to discuss it.
So in the Sherman Act, what does the word mean? In what manner or sense is it different from the way the is used today word today by dictionaries and economists?
From my reading of the Sherman Act and a Wiki article, I get the impression that the word monopoly is used in the conventional sense in the act. Seemingly, it is the method of formation which is relevant to whether the monopoly is legal or illegal.
In another thread I described antitrust law as a big hairball, which from what I've seen as a layman is a pretty accurate description. I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to understand the subtleties, but I did follow the Microsoft antitrust case quite closely so I have a sort of working understanding of what the government had to prove in that instance anyway.
The dictionary definition of monopoly isn't very helpful in understanding what the antitrust laws are attempting to prohibit. The economic definitions I've seen aren't of much help either.
The only reason I get kind of worked up about this issue is from my past experience with discussing the Microsoft case in venues like this one. I can't count the number of times I had to respond to the logic that if consumers had a choice, any choice at all, that Microsoft could not possibly have a problem under the law. The dictionary definition of monopoly was usually waved around as "proof" of that assertion. IOW, for practical purposes, they never could.
So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.
Wow, this really gets tiresome, this point having been gone over so many times, in so many discussions...
1. Clearly, and for example, if Apple embeds its logo in firmware, and you buy a phone, you haven't bought the rights to the Apple logo, you haven't even bought the instance of the logo, just a license to use it on the hardware. The example previously given -- i.e., a device id -- is entirely analogous.
2. I never made an argument, "that ONLY that information is available." In fact, I was in this instance simply pointing out that you were incorrect in an assertion that all "information" on the device is the property of the user.
Good. Ok. Now e are getting somewhere.
So you agree that Apple does NOT own all the information, so that talk of Apple providing proprietary information to competitors is a red herring?
Apple does not own some of/most of the information we are discussing. So the information is NOT the property of Apple, and Apple is not being asked to provide anything it owns to any competitor.
I'm glad we agree now. But it took a while to get there.
Right, I think the Sherman Act is referring to the process of monopolization. If I invent the perfect widget I am bound to have the widget market to myself for some time at least. The law is not interested in whether I dominate the widget market and make money hand over fist by virtue of making a better widget. The law becomes interested when or if I start using that dominance to maintain or extend my dominance in the widget market by creating barriers to competition, if I use powers that nobody else in the market has in order to attempt to keep other widget makers from competing fairly with my widgets.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that American antitrust laws (Sherman and Clayton acts) were created to perfect markets, not to regulate markets. Big difference.
I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.
The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.
But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.
So you agree that Apple does NOT own all the information, so that talk of Apple providing proprietary information to competitors is a red herring?
Apple does not own some of/most of the information we are discussing. So the information is NOT the property of Apple, and Apple is not being asked to provide anything it owns to any competitor.
I'm glad we agree now. But it took a while to get there.
No, we don't agree. In fact, I'd have to say that your reply is utterly misrepresentative, once again.
In another thread I described antitrust law as a big hairball, which from what I've seen as a layman is a pretty accurate description. I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to understand the subtleties, but I did follow the Microsoft antitrust case quite closely so I have a sort of working understanding of what the government had to prove in that instance anyway.
The dictionary definition of monopoly isn't very helpful in understanding what the antitrust laws are attempting to prohibit. The economic definitions I've seen aren't of much help either.
The only reason I get kind of worked up about this issue is from my past experience with discussing the Microsoft case in venues like this one. I can't count the number of times I had to respond to the logic that if consumers had a choice, any choice at all, that Microsoft could not possibly have a problem under the law. The dictionary definition of monopoly was usually waved around as "proof" of that assertion. IOW, for practical purposes, they never could.
So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.
Agree completely. Antitrust law is a bitch. Arguing from the Sherman and Clayton acts is not going to enlighten things much. The case law is probably more important then the original legislation. Especially after the courts shifted during the Reagan era and the focus moved from 'how much real competition is there?' to 'did it harm the consumer?'.
What you seem to want is to force Coca Cola to stock Pepsi in its vending machines!
Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.
But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.
Um no, they aren't. Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies.
Abuse of monopoly position is illegal. Using a monopoly or dominant control of a market to hinder fair trade is illegal. But being a monopoly is not, itsel,f illegal. A government trade regulatory body may act to prevent a monopoly situation from arising, for example through a merger, but only if it is demonstrated that that circumstance would be a hinderance to trade or would otherwise hurt consumers ability to choose. But, in some cases, they will allow the merger if the benefits of allowing the merger might outweigh the downsides (i.e. better able to provide necessary services).
Your cable company? A legal monopoly. AT&T? Used to be a legal monopoly until they started abusing it.
You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.
Legal monopolies can be granted by law, such as cable companies, or power companies, but those laws also directly regulate that kind of monopoly. My point is monopolies are illegal, but I should have qualified it that the government can grant one in the public interest. Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not
Legal monopolies can be granted by law, such as cable companies, or power companies, but those laws also directly regulate that kind of monopoly. My point is monopolies are illegal, but I should have qualified it that the government can grant one in the public interest. Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not
Sanctioned monopolies are just an example of legal monopolies. Other monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal.
Comments
Huh? Isn't that what I said? Monopolies are not illegal. Abusive Monopolies are illegal.
If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.
You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.
Read the Wiki article on the Sherman Act. It is very interesting.
It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors. For example, a monopoly formed by the merger of two big companies may be illegal, no matter what they do afterwards:
"A Section 1 violation has three elements:
1. An agreement
2. which unreasonably restrains competition
3. and which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
I'm very glad that I was incorrect previously. It means that I learned something today. The OP made good and correct points. I'd bet lots of readers got new info from him.
I think I already explained some of this, but the word monopoly is used in the Sherman Act in a fairly archaic way to describe efforts to control markets. This is not the dictionary definition nor the economic definition of monopoly, which if they were the operative ones, would mean the laws would be fundamentally meaningless, since this state frequently exists even with the protection of government.
Scan the Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft. You'll see that the word "monopoly" is nearly always followed by "power," this being the basis for the findings of violations. The judge found that they didn't just have a monopoly, they had monopoly power. He found that they didn't just have monopoly power, they abused it to restrain trade.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Thanks.
So in the Sherman Act, what does the word mean? In what manner or sense is it different from the way the is used today word today by dictionaries and economists?
From my reading of the Sherman Act and a Wiki article, I get the impression that the word monopoly is used in the conventional sense in the act. Seemingly, it is the method of formation which is relevant to whether the monopoly is legal or illegal.
If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.
I think it was my writing "While the language of the Sherman act seems to forbid monopolies of any kind, courts, including the US Supreme court, have interpreted it to mean coercive or abusive monopolies are illegal, but not monopolies in and of themselves." that caused the confusion.
Which, on reading the language, it certainly gives the impression that monopolies are illegal. That's why I used "seems" and further stated that the courts have said this is not the correct interpretation.
Anyhoo, lots of confusion for us all today.
I have no opinion as to whether all of us would be better served by more or less advertising on the iPhone.
But what we most definitely do not need is Government intervention to determine what we need.
Let's duke it out in the free marketplace...while, at least a little part of the marketplace is still free.
The only thing that the government is trying to do is to keep the marketplace free. If there is no free marketplace, there is nowhere to duke it out.
Read the Wiki article on the Sherman Act. It is very interesting.
It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors. For example, a monopoly formed by the merger of two big companies may be illegal, no matter what they do afterwards:
"A Section 1 violation has three elements:
1. An agreement
2. which unreasonably restrains competition
3. and which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
I'm very glad that I was incorrect previously. It means that I learned something today. The OP made good and correct points. I'd bet lots of readers got new info from him.
As you wrote, "It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors."
As Milmoss has pointed out, that is the critical point.
You're one funny, confused guy. First you repeat ad nauseam that Apple just shares your information without your permission.
Nowhere did I say that. Go away.
It's a highly cynical, and incorrect, view that all companies are the same, equally good or bad for consumers,
I agree.
Nowhere did I say that. Go away.
No, you just implied it repeatedly.
Hello? As I've said several times now, the language of the antitrust laws does not prohibit monopolies. They were never intended to do so. What they were designed to do is prohibit abuse of monopoly power. A basic concept, essential to understanding what is legal and what is illegal under the law. For example:
One of the first antitrust complaints brought against Microsoft was over their so-called "CPU tax." For many years Microsoft required all OEMs who wanted to bundle Microsoft's OS with their computers to pay Microsoft a license for every computer they sold, whether or not the computer included the OS. This created a situation wherein any computer sold with a competing OS installed would still have to pay Microsoft a license fee for that computer. It was not illegal for Microsoft to have the monopoly power to force the OEMs into accepting this arrangement, but it was illegal for them to actually take advantage of that power, and create the artificial barrier to competition.
Get it? I hope this distinction isn't too subtle, because it's critical.
Please read the Wiki article on the Sherman Act. I'd love to discuss it.
Thanks.
So in the Sherman Act, what does the word mean? In what manner or sense is it different from the way the is used today word today by dictionaries and economists?
From my reading of the Sherman Act and a Wiki article, I get the impression that the word monopoly is used in the conventional sense in the act. Seemingly, it is the method of formation which is relevant to whether the monopoly is legal or illegal.
In another thread I described antitrust law as a big hairball, which from what I've seen as a layman is a pretty accurate description. I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to understand the subtleties, but I did follow the Microsoft antitrust case quite closely so I have a sort of working understanding of what the government had to prove in that instance anyway.
The dictionary definition of monopoly isn't very helpful in understanding what the antitrust laws are attempting to prohibit. The economic definitions I've seen aren't of much help either.
The only reason I get kind of worked up about this issue is from my past experience with discussing the Microsoft case in venues like this one. I can't count the number of times I had to respond to the logic that if consumers had a choice, any choice at all, that Microsoft could not possibly have a problem under the law. The dictionary definition of monopoly was usually waved around as "proof" of that assertion. IOW, for practical purposes, they never could.
So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.
Hey Apple, open = good, closed = bad.
I take it then that you don't bother to lock your doors at night. What's your address again?
Wow, this really gets tiresome, this point having been gone over so many times, in so many discussions...
1. Clearly, and for example, if Apple embeds its logo in firmware, and you buy a phone, you haven't bought the rights to the Apple logo, you haven't even bought the instance of the logo, just a license to use it on the hardware. The example previously given -- i.e., a device id -- is entirely analogous.
2. I never made an argument, "that ONLY that information is available." In fact, I was in this instance simply pointing out that you were incorrect in an assertion that all "information" on the device is the property of the user.
Good. Ok. Now e are getting somewhere.
So you agree that Apple does NOT own all the information, so that talk of Apple providing proprietary information to competitors is a red herring?
Apple does not own some of/most of the information we are discussing. So the information is NOT the property of Apple, and Apple is not being asked to provide anything it owns to any competitor.
I'm glad we agree now. But it took a while to get there.
Right, I think the Sherman Act is referring to the process of monopolization. If I invent the perfect widget I am bound to have the widget market to myself for some time at least. The law is not interested in whether I dominate the widget market and make money hand over fist by virtue of making a better widget. The law becomes interested when or if I start using that dominance to maintain or extend my dominance in the widget market by creating barriers to competition, if I use powers that nobody else in the market has in order to attempt to keep other widget makers from competing fairly with my widgets.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that American antitrust laws (Sherman and Clayton acts) were created to perfect markets, not to regulate markets. Big difference.
I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.
The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.
But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.
Good. Ok. Now e are getting somewhere.
So you agree that Apple does NOT own all the information, so that talk of Apple providing proprietary information to competitors is a red herring?
Apple does not own some of/most of the information we are discussing. So the information is NOT the property of Apple, and Apple is not being asked to provide anything it owns to any competitor.
I'm glad we agree now. But it took a while to get there.
No, we don't agree. In fact, I'd have to say that your reply is utterly misrepresentative, once again.
In another thread I described antitrust law as a big hairball, which from what I've seen as a layman is a pretty accurate description. I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to understand the subtleties, but I did follow the Microsoft antitrust case quite closely so I have a sort of working understanding of what the government had to prove in that instance anyway.
The dictionary definition of monopoly isn't very helpful in understanding what the antitrust laws are attempting to prohibit. The economic definitions I've seen aren't of much help either.
The only reason I get kind of worked up about this issue is from my past experience with discussing the Microsoft case in venues like this one. I can't count the number of times I had to respond to the logic that if consumers had a choice, any choice at all, that Microsoft could not possibly have a problem under the law. The dictionary definition of monopoly was usually waved around as "proof" of that assertion. IOW, for practical purposes, they never could.
So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.
Agree completely. Antitrust law is a bitch. Arguing from the Sherman and Clayton acts is not going to enlighten things much. The case law is probably more important then the original legislation. Especially after the courts shifted during the Reagan era and the focus moved from 'how much real competition is there?' to 'did it harm the consumer?'.
Anyway, I begin to digress.
What you seem to want is to force Coca Cola to stock Pepsi in its vending machines!
Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.
But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.
Um no, they aren't. Not only are they not illegal, there are many example of government sanctioned monopolies.
Abuse of monopoly position is illegal. Using a monopoly or dominant control of a market to hinder fair trade is illegal. But being a monopoly is not, itsel,f illegal. A government trade regulatory body may act to prevent a monopoly situation from arising, for example through a merger, but only if it is demonstrated that that circumstance would be a hinderance to trade or would otherwise hurt consumers ability to choose. But, in some cases, they will allow the merger if the benefits of allowing the merger might outweigh the downsides (i.e. better able to provide necessary services).
Your cable company? A legal monopoly. AT&T? Used to be a legal monopoly until they started abusing it.
You are right, that they can be difficult to define in a courtroom, as a legally defined monopoly does not have to mean 100% market share. Monopolies are rarely encouraged by governments, but they are not illegal.
Legal monopolies can be granted by law, such as cable companies, or power companies, but those laws also directly regulate that kind of monopoly. My point is monopolies are illegal, but I should have qualified it that the government can grant one in the public interest. Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not
As you wrote, "It seems that certain monopolies are indeed per se illegal, depending upon other factors."
As Milmoss has pointed out, that is the critical point.
Naw. He was talking about actions taken by firms with monopoly power.
I was talking about completely different factors, having to do not with what the companies do, but rather, how they were formed.
Yes, "other factors" exist. But the phrase is used to mean different things in the two contexts.
Legal monopolies can be granted by law, such as cable companies, or power companies, but those laws also directly regulate that kind of monopoly. My point is monopolies are illegal, but I should have qualified it that the government can grant one in the public interest. Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not
Sanctioned monopolies are just an example of legal monopolies. Other monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal.