[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What? The regulators are pre-emptively punishing companies *before* they commit these pricing crimes?
[/ QUOTE ]
no. their mandate is to prevent companies from being in a position to commit "these pricing crimes." therefore not observing "these pricing crimes" can also be linked, in part, to the regulators doing their job, not solely to the implausability of predatory pricing. that is what i pointed out is wrong with your argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
How do you prevent companies from "being in a postion to commit these pricing crimes" without taking action against them before they've done something "wrong".
While we're at it, please explian to me the question that's been begged in this entire thread: what exactly is "wrong" about asking $X for product Y?
If your cost of production is $100, it's OK to ask $101 for product Y.
But suddenly, if your cost of production is $99, it's bad to ask $101 for the same exact product?
Please explain to me why it matters how much I'm making or losing on the transaction. The buyer either finds the product worth the asking price or he doesn't.
And please explain what's "good" about price gouging/predatory pricing laws that's different from "bad" price celings/price floors.
[ QUOTE ]
how could another company compete when a vast standard is set and too many businesses, schools, other users are linked to the dominant standard AND programs can be attacked from within that standard?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not my problem to come up with a better business model for would-be competitors.
[ QUOTE ]
apple is by FAR a better technology than microsoft.
[/ QUOTE ]
Opinion. The hardware required to run MacOS, FWIW, is significantly more expensive than the hardware that runs windows. And apple has a "monopoly" on that hardware.
[ QUOTE ]
but who has the dominant share?
[/ QUOTE ]
Are we talking operating systems here? Because it really doesn't matter who has the most share when you're talking about "programs being attacked" or whatever babble you're slinging above. MacOS users can interoperate just fine with windows users. You can see the same websites, open and edit the same documents. There's no huge barrier. Not that it would matter if there were.
[ QUOTE ]
there are some die hard apple users, sure, but overall, microsoft developed the standard and now have a monopoly, despite apple having a far better product that gives consumers more value for their money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you can determine how much something is worth to someone else? If you can do this, we might as well pack up the market for everything and just let you centrally controll the entire economy. There's probably a nobel prize in here somewhere for you if you can actually do this.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural barriers to entry are lower in software than in any other market.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes, which makes microsoft's monopoly with an inferior product all the more powerful a case.
[/ QUOTE ]
How? If you agree that the natural barriers are low, HOW are they holding this "monopoly"? You agreeing that the barriers are low and then saying they have a monopoly is self-contradictory.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should any company be forced to make their products work with anyone else's product?
[/ QUOTE ]
they shouldn't. i agree 100%. but if a regulator exists to prevent monopolies from engaging in monopolist acts that hurt the consumer, then that is something they have to deal with (assuming you give regulators that mandate).
[/ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't, but they should? Which is it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The microsoft antitrust case is one of the MOST blatant examples of the use of such antitrust legislation as a weapon weilded by politically-connected companies against more successful competitors.
[/ QUOTE ]
can you cite, explain, or back this up because i'm not currently aware of how this played out as you said.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=346