|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
The definition of monopoly is the ability to control
entrance to the market. Clearly Google does not - Bing,
Yahoo, others do search. Anyone can stand up a search
page, if they have the resources. Google wins not by
setting barriers to entry, but by being the best. If Bing
were as good as MS says, people would go there to search.
That's why I switched ages ago from Altavista to Google - it
was better. I tried Yahoo for a while. Google was better.
Again and again.
This is not to say Google is all wonderful and can do no
wrong. I've got disagreements with some of their policies.
However, their "quasi-monopoly" on search is on merits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
"It trivializes the anti-trust situation
to say that you should restrict a monopoly unless you also restrict the
competitive fringe. It is both legal and fair to do one without doing the
other."
Legal, maybe. Fair? I don't think so, unless there is major abuse by the
dominant entity. Just being better and larger should not be penalized. Even
being a monopoly (if abuse isn't involved) shouldn't be penalized.
Adding abuse to the equation changes the whole thing, though.
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
This comment is correct, that in antitrust law,
size matters.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
You are forgetting something. Remember when
Barnes & Noble went to court and said that
Microsoft was using patents to try to extend
their desktop monopoly to mobiles? That would
be, if proven, and antitrust violation. They
still have a monopoly on the desktop, and
trying to use a monopoly in one area to
get one in another is a problem.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
