Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Bell Labs had a monopoly, as part of Bell Telephone, which was (AFAIK) granted exclusive right to provide telephone service. Microsoft does not. AFAIK, Xerox never has had a monopoly.

Having a large amount of marketshare != a monopoly.

Lots of people insist on using the term for both things. I don't know why. But even if you are one of those people, surely you will see there there is a fundamental difference between those two things.

For the sake of this discussion, it would be necessary to differentiate between them.




I don't think it's necessary to make a distinction between a de jure monopoly, say, and a de facto monopoly, or a cartel.

The point is a market that allows lots of profit for an extended time period. This doesn't have to produce a Bell Labs, but it sure seems helpful.


Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.


And that conviction was immoral and improper. Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the proper sense of the term, only in the sense used by anti-business people who want to twist the term to suit their own purpose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: