I saw bush speak...

[Adron]

That's typical republican policies. They're all for the big corporations, letting them gain monopolies and drive up prices. Very obvious that it happens on a Bush rally too. Well, good thing everyone saw that, and know not to vote Bush now.

You are very wrong. Conservative economics is for a more free market. Fewer taxes. The less government intervention in the market, the less chance for collusion. If there are no governments there could be no collusion because competition would take place every time.

That's not what happens without government involvement. Look at Microsoft - without governments around to regulate competition, there'd be no competition.

[quasi-modo]

No. First off microsoft is not a monopoly. They are in competition all over the place. If we are talking about the os, you have windows competeing with macos, linux, and unix. If governments are not involved at all the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system. They will resort to using linux or unix or macos. Also those oss would probably be better at that point. Competition is natural, if there is a company charging more for a product (even though it is differentiated) people are going to try to get a bargain and get the cheaper one. They want a greater consumer surplus. The reason microsoft is so much bigger then the others is because all of the software is working with their product, but say the government did not get involved, software would not work with windows as well because microsoft is not open source. It was the government who made them give up source code to begin with. If they did not do that microsoft would eventually be forced to go open source.

With governments we get monoplies. Look at the trusts throughout history: You have the railroad trusts, standard oil, countless trusts at the beginning of the last century and the end of the one before that. They were caused by the government's actions. The laws actually helped them form.

[Adron]

No. First off microsoft is not a monopoly. They are in competition all over the place. If we are talking about the os, you have windows competeing with macos, linux, and unix. If governments are not involved at all the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system. They will resort to using linux or unix or macos.

Actually, if the government is not involved at all, the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system; the consumer will just copy the windows operating system. I suppose that'd be the best?

A basic problem: Since the cost of computer software consists virtually entirely of development (as opposed to building a railroad, digging for oil etc), a player that is big in the marketplace can get bigger and just gain money. There will be no significant additional cost with each sold copy. Dumping prices is easy when needed, and competition can be killed off without any trouble by either buying them out or making what they used to make a "free" component of your system.

[quasi-modo]

No. First off microsoft is not a monopoly. They are in competition all over the place. If we are talking about the os, you have windows competeing with macos, linux, and unix. If governments are not involved at all the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system. They will resort to using linux or unix or macos.

Actually, if the government is not involved at all, the consumer will not pay arm and leg for the windows operating system; the consumer will just copy the windows operating system. I suppose that'd be the best?

Sure they are. When they force microsoft to give up source code they are. When the eu pisses about microsoft bundleing windows with media player they are. If the us government did not say microsoft has to give up source code, odds are there would not be as many software titles that work on windows. I can see this decreasing their popularity.

A basic problem: Since the cost of computer software consists virtually entirely of development (as opposed to building a railroad, digging for oil etc), a player that is big in the marketplace can get bigger and just gain money. There will be no significant additional cost with each sold copy. Dumping prices is easy when needed, and competition can be killed off without any trouble by either buying them out or making what they used to make a "free" component of your system.

That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

[dxoigmn]

Sure they are. When they force microsoft to give up source code they are. When the eu pisses about microsoft bundleing windows with media player they are. If the us government did not say microsoft has to give up source code, odds are there would not be as many software titles that work on windows. I can see this decreasing their popularity.

You're making assumptions, horrible ones.  Before all the lawsuits, thousands of applications worked on windows.

That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

What ever you say can't change the fact that microsoft *is* a monopoly.  The courts recognizes this.  But to prove it to you...can you name one operating system that has > 10% of the market share of the desktop market (intel-compatible)?

[quasi-modo]

Sure they are. When they force microsoft to give up source code they are. When the eu pisses about microsoft bundleing windows with media player they are. If the us government did not say microsoft has to give up source code, odds are there would not be as many software titles that work on windows. I can see this decreasing their popularity.

You're making assumptions, horrible ones.  Before all the lawsuits, thousands of applications worked on windows.

Yes but the anti trust lawsuits, if they had not taken place, might have allowed microsoft to act monopolistic for a period of time, but pretty soon microsoft would not be able to do it anymore because the market can correct its self.
Lets look at opec for a second. If those countires were not allowed to stick the way they do because of the regulations of governments they would be thrown into competition. Iraq could very well break up the cartel.


That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

What ever you say can't change the fact that microsoft *is* a monopoly.  The courts recognizes this.  But to prove it to you...can you name one operating system that has > 10% of the market share of the desktop market (intel-compatible)?

Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Lets examine the competition:
You have mac, you have sun, you have ibm (aix), you have hp, you have tons of other companies with their own versions of unix. Then you have linux. Microsoft competes with them all over the place. But it is most visible in the server and work station market. The majority of web servers are certainly not windows.

Microsoft is not even that bad compared to the trusts in the sherman era. Those were monsters (humm, that was because it was government intervention that allowed them to be), now we are under clayton.

My point: If the market is allowed to take care of its self there are fewer problems. Taxes are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching a natural equilibrium and create a dead weight loss. Price ceiling and price floors are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and create shortages and surpluses. The only thing a government should do with the market is to prevent market failures (negative externalities)

[dxoigmn]

Yes but the anti trust lawsuits, if they had not taken place, might have allowed microsoft to act monopolistic for a period of time, but pretty soon microsoft would not be able to do it anymore because the market can correct its self.
Lets look at opec for a second. If those countires were not allowed to stick the way they do because of the regulations of governments they would be thrown into competition. Iraq could very well break up the cartel.


That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

What are you talking about?  The court found microsoft was a monopoly, had harmed consumers, and had contacts that had anti-competitive effects.  If that isn't a monopoly, then I don't know what is.  How can the market correct itself from a monopoly, in the case of Microsoft? No regulations of government could stop OPEC.  If a government wanted to boycott OPEC, then they're only harming themselves if they're a oil driven society.  How cannot buy out the competition?

Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Lets examine the competition:
You have mac, you have sun, you have ibm (aix), you have hp, you have tons of other companies with their own versions of unix. Then you have linux. Microsoft competes with them all over the place. But it is most visible in the server and work station market. The majority of web servers are certainly not windows.

Microsoft is not even that bad compared to the trusts in the sherman era. Those were monsters (humm, that was because it was government intervention that allowed them to be), now we are under clayton.

My point: If the market is allowed to take care of its self there are fewer problems. Taxes are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching a natural equilibrium and create a dead weight loss. Price ceiling and price floors are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and create shortages and surpluses. The only thing a government should do with the market is to prevent market failures (negative externalities)

Microsoft does not compete against non-intel compatible operating system markets, that is they don't make an operating system for Apples or other esoteric hardware. They make a product for intel-compatible computers and that is who they compete with and for the most part it is *nix.  Microsoft's leading product is a desktop operating system, not a server operating system; that is an important distinction.  It is a percentage thing.  Consumers really don't have a choice.  They want something they're familiar with (windows, not *nix), they want something that's easy to use (windows, not *nix), and they want something that will work with devices they buy (windows, not *nix).  That leaves Windows, and hence makes Microsoft a monopoly.  These other products don't even affect Microsoft's market share.

Side note: I am not bashing *nix.  I just think Windows is a superior desktop operating system.  And my comments are generalizations and for the most part the fault of the manufacturer for not providing drivers or developing their product with a operating system other than Windows in mind.

[quasi-modo]

Yes but the anti trust lawsuits, if they had not taken place, might have allowed microsoft to act monopolistic for a period of time, but pretty soon microsoft would not be able to do it anymore because the market can correct its self.
Lets look at opec for a second. If those countires were not allowed to stick the way they do because of the regulations of governments they would be thrown into competition. Iraq could very well break up the cartel.


That does not change the fact at all that microsoft is not a monopoly because they are in competition and they cannot buy out the competition at this point. They cannot 'buy' unix, they can't buy linux, mac, or solaris either. If the government did not intervein, like I mentioned a second ago microsoft might have more of a problem with these competeing operating systems.

What are you talking about?  The court found microsoft was a monopoly, had harmed consumers, and had contacts that had anti-competitive effects.  If that isn't a monopoly, then I don't know what is.  How can the market correct itself from a monopoly, in the case of Microsoft? No regulations of government could stop OPEC.  If a government wanted to boycott OPEC, then they're only harming themselves if they're a oil driven society.  How cannot buy out the competition?

microsoft is not a monoply by definition. I do not care what a court says about them sharing source code. Microsoft is not a monoply. If you say they are then you do not know what a monopoly really is. If there is any competition it is not a monoply.

Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Lets examine the competition:
You have mac, you have sun, you have ibm (aix), you have hp, you have tons of other companies with their own versions of unix. Then you have linux. Microsoft competes with them all over the place. But it is most visible in the server and work station market. The majority of web servers are certainly not windows.

Microsoft is not even that bad compared to the trusts in the sherman era. Those were monsters (humm, that was because it was government intervention that allowed them to be), now we are under clayton.

My point: If the market is allowed to take care of its self there are fewer problems. Taxes are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching a natural equilibrium and create a dead weight loss. Price ceiling and price floors are inherently bad because they prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and create shortages and surpluses. The only thing a government should do with the market is to prevent market failures (negative externalities)

Microsoft does not compete against non-intel compatible operating system markets, that is they don't make an operating system for Apples or other esoteric hardware. They make a product for intel-compatible computers and that is who they compete with and for the most part it is *nix.  Microsoft's leading product is a desktop operating system, not a server operating system; that is an important distinction.  It is a percentage thing.  Consumers really don't have a choice.  They want something they're familiar with (windows, not *nix), they want something that's easy to use (windows, not *nix), and they want something that will work with devices they buy (windows, not *nix).  That leaves Windows, and hence makes Microsoft a monopoly.  These other products don't even affect Microsoft's market share.

Side note: I am not bashing *nix.  I just think Windows is a superior desktop operating system.  And my comments are generalizations and for the most part the fault of the manufacturer for not providing drivers or developing their product with a operating system other than Windows in mind.

Microsoft does compete against non x86 systems. If someone is buying a mac that means they are not buying a dell bundled with xp.

[Adron]

Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Hmm. Oligopoly is when there are several major actors jacking up prices together. Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.

[quasi-modo]

Its not a %  thing. It is the fact that Microsoft is still in competition. If there is any competition it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft is in some tight monopolistic competition, maybe even an oligopoly, but they are not a monopoly. They have power to set the price and price discriminate so they have a lot of power, but since there are other companies that prevent them from charging even more they cannot be a true monopoly.

Hmm. Oligopoly is when there are several major actors jacking up prices together.

No, I believe the word you are looking for is collusion. Oligopoly is one of the 4 types of competition, it is an industry where there are not many firms and the product is not completely differentiated.

Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.

Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?

[dxoigmn]

Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?

Buy out the companies that market linux and stop their marketing.  Then you only have a grassroots marketing which usually isn't very effective.

[dxoigmn]

Microsoft does compete against non x86 systems. If someone is buying a mac that means they are not buying a dell bundled with xp.

Microsoft already sold the OS to Dell.  Dell is then competing with Apple.

[quasi-modo]

Microsoft does compete against non x86 systems. If someone is buying a mac that means they are not buying a dell bundled with xp.

Microsoft already sold the OS to Dell.  Dell is then competing with Apple.

Microsoft is therefore in competition with apple indirectly.

Microsoft also competes with apple in another way: A lot of people buy macs because they do not like PCs, they do not want windows. They want mac for its graphics capabilities and other stuff.

Microsoft is also in competition with IBM. Their power servers are using AIX. That is instead of an x86 server with windows on it.

[Adron]

Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.

Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?

I wasn't talking about linux or unix, I was talking about companies marketing them. Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft because linux is an OS and Microsoft is a company. Besides, unix doesn't compete with Windows other than on servers.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft funded Apple at some point in time. A good way to maintain the image that they're not a monopoly.

[quasi-modo]

Monopoly is when there's just one. Still, I wonder if this isn't actually a monopoly. Microsoft is big enough to buy up its competitors. Allowing certain other players on the market is probably just a trick to make people think it's not a monopoly, and to keep the government of their backs. Microsoft might even be funding fake competition to make it seem like there's no monopoly.

Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Except how would you go about buying Linux or unix when they are not any one companie's os. How can ms buy out sun microsystems, mac, or ibm or other companies with nice unix based osses?

I wasn't talking about linux or unix, I was talking about companies marketing them. Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft because linux is an OS and Microsoft is a company. Besides, unix doesn't compete with Windows other than on servers.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft funded Apple at some point in time. A good way to maintain the image that they're not a monopoly.

I have only heard of microsoft stealing the apple idea... not funding them. Show me some evidence of this happening. Micorosft's monopoly was on their os. They went to court and were forced to supply relevant source code to other companies making software for their os that competes with their own. The linux os is open source and competes with windows.