"If Big Business runs the State, how come the combined force of Sears, Checker, and Home Depot seem to be impotent in stopping these oppressive enforcements? How about Martha Stewart? How about Bill Bill Gates? The post office is a forced monopoly. Remember James Jerome Hill, made the best railroads in the world, the State ruined him for that competition.

Ever hear of different factions of the ruling class, Judith, with competing interests? They would all be allied in the event of a revolution, but are also ready to fight among themselves over the question of who gets most of the goodies. Did the Wars of the Roses or the Fronde prove that England and France were not feudal countries, and that the state was not run in the interests of the feudal class?

Crony Capitalism is not Free Market Capitalism. A Free Market means just that - the freedom to innovate and compete WITHOUT Government siding with one interest or another.

What you are describing Meyer is Crony Capitalism and is a wHorse of a different color.

I won't argue with you on the point that the ruling elites do manipulate, and control, our Political System to their personal benefit. Like you I strongly object to that occurring.

However, I must beg to differ when you imply that the Fascist Conglomeration of a Priveliged few and Government represents an honest market in operation.

Such occurs under Socialist Systems as well. The modern designer of many of our cherished "Social Safety Nets" owes as much to Otto Bismarck as Karl Marx. I reject both.

In a truly Free-Market, the Wal-Marts and Microsofts keep swallowing the little guy until they have a virtual monopoly on the marketplace -- remember, monopolies are LEGAL in a truly FREE-MARKET.

These Corporate behemouths will then outspend, outlitigate, out appeal their competition and the citizen (even moreso than they do now!!!) -- and there are no laws nor regulations to stop them. Why? Because such laws are regulations are ILLEGAL.

Pretty damn good system, this Free-Market Libertarianism, if you're Bill Gates or Sam Walton.

...Monopolies are virtually impossible to establish. Point to any Monopoly and you will find, if you turn over a few rocks, that there exists the connivance of Politicians being Paid off to write laws which favor that Business Entity.

The Rail Road Monopolies would have been impossible without Government intervening to grant them "Right of Ways" through Public and Private Lands.

A Monopoly by definition means that there is only ONE Producer of a given Product or Service.

In a Free Economy where a Business gains a Temporary Advantage and attempts to exploit it by charging unreasoably High Prices they then create an opportunity for someone else to come in and undercut their prices and still make a living.

A Free Market is a Dynamic System that is constantly in a state of flux. Because someone has a dominant position one year does not mean they will be able to maintain it in the next - WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

FOR EXAMPLE: The AMA and the Pharmaceutical Cartel holds a Death Grip on the Practice of Medicine. Why? Government intervention, Laws, which favor their model and inhibit the growth of alternatives which are less invasive and more beneficial. The FDA has been used time and again to Squash Alternative Treatments that showed Promise in providing PERMANENT CURES to deadly disease. (Do a Google on Royal Raymond Rife or "Alternative Medicine" AND "AMA") Why would they do this? Because the Pharmaceutical Cartel bribes the Politicians to pass laws favorable to their Brand of Medicine and Prohibit the Use of Alternatives. They USE Government to eliminate Competition and protect the Market for their product. Which is also why they are more interested in "Treatments" which generate a constant stream of Business rather than "CURES" which result in a happy healthy patient no longer in need of their "Product". This is also why Medical Treatment is so expensive - Government Protection and Favoritism. It stifles innovation and lower prices.

Bill Gates does not have a Monopoly. He has a Popular Product. There are alternatives - like the Operating System that runs my Computer.

Walmart is not a Monopoly and has been the recipient of Priviliged Trade Access by Government Action. As well there are Literally THOUSANDS of other Retailers selling the same products - often times at the same or lower prices.

If Government enforcement action were limited to just being the Umpire and prosecuting fouls (Fraud and Extortion) you would not see the same level of abuse of the Consumer. Your contention that laws protecting purchasers from Fraud or other Abuse is illegal is absurd. Strict liability laws are fought tooth and nail by industry and are held at bay only by paying off Crooked Politicians to NOT pass laws to hold them accountable, and TO pass laws which favor their Business. However, that the normal operation of a Free Market causes these actions is palpably false. That is not the case and therefore your argument fails the sniff test.

Tilt

Play Again?

This is the real world with Libertarian SUPERHERO Bill Gates. He can buys his way out of any trouble with his army of lawyers by making deals with the claimants. And they take his handouts because they know they can't afford the lengthy and risky appeals process which may or may not impose a severe financial punishment. So Gates and company proceed, business as usual...



Judge rules Microsoft violated antitrust laws

By Joe Wilcox

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

April 3, 2000, 6:30 PM PT

WASHINGTON--A federal judge has concluded that Microsoft violated antitrust laws by leveraging its monopoly position in operating systems to capture the market for Web browsers.

"The court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market," U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson wrote in a "conclusions of law" ruling released today.

As proof of Microsoft's monopoly power, Jackson cited the company's dominance in PC operating systems.

"There are currently no products--and there are not likely to be any in the near future--that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs," Jackson wrote. "Neither Microsoft nor its (original equipment manufacturing) customers believe that the latter will have--or will anytime soon--even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for pre-installation on their PCs." - http://news.com.com/2100-1001-238758.html?legacy=cnet



EC concerned about Microsoft monopoly

By Paul Meller April 30, 2003

Microsoft has so far failed to offer the European Commission grounds for a settlement in the long-running antitrust lawsuit against the company, a senior antitrust official said Wednesday.

"We still have outstanding concerns," said Philip Lowe, the most senior civil servant in the Commission’s competition division.

The Commission is understood to be nearing the end of its five-year-long investigation into Microsoft’s business practices...

The Commission is investigating whether Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly in the market for operating systems software into the market for low-end computer server software. The case concerns Windows 2000 and all previous versions going back to Windows 95...

Unless Microsoft comes up with a satisfactory solution that would ensure fair competition in these markets the Commission will impose remedies on the company. The EU executive charged with policing competition in the 15-member European Union could also impose a fine on Microsoft of up to about billion or 10 percent of the company's global annual sales. - http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/04/30/HNecconcerned_1.html

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are trying so hard to prove that people some times do bad things that are against the law.

Who'd a thunk?

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is you who are trying to prove that monopolies won't exist because market-forces smooth-over to the negative acts of uncaring individuals.

It is you who are trying to prove that removings law and regulations from business won't increase corporate corruption, exploitation and pollution.

It is you who is the phoney "activist" -- a Republican who pretends to be some radical humanist when you're really just a selfish Capitalist

...have I ever been a member of the Republican Party Mr. McCarthy.

Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they wish you or other people harm. It means they disagree with you. When they can tear your arguments apart it may make you mad but it does not make them wrong.

Please point to 1 example in the United States today of a Monopoly - that actually fits the definition of a Monopoly - that enjoys it's dominance other than by protections given in law by the Government?

I did provide you a very recent example - Microsoft - and they attained their Monopolistic position due to ANTI-COMPETITIVE practices and not governmental protections.

But you chose to ignore it because Libertarians (who often vote Republican) and Republican-Libertarians don't like to confront a reality that doesn't support a FREE-MARKET UTOPIA.

Microsoft, having deeper pockets and better lawyers than the coalition of Dozens of State Dictrict Attorney, CONTRIVED it's own "punishment" during the Appeals process.

A majority of those D.A.'s took the deal because they had run out of time and money to devote to this single case, and so Microsoft got away with its anti-competitive practices with almost no substantive penalties.

Does Bill Gates make you horny?

A monopoly means you're the only choice. If you go to buy tires and only one company on the planet Earth makes tires, THAT'S a monopoly. I can buy other software other than Microsoft's brand, therefore, not a monopoly.

How Microsoft strategy paid off

By Brier Dudley

Seattle Times technology reporter

Sunday, November 03, 2002

...Proving that Microsoft broke the law was not as difficult. There was plenty of evidence the company bullied partners and manipulated its allies in its efforts to kill off potential challengers to its monopoly.

But connecting the dots between the company's behavior and the changes in the marketplace — establishing cause and effect, or in legal terms, "causation" — appeared to be nearly impossible because so many factors affect change in the technology industry.

So the government could never prove absolutely that Microsoft benefited from breaking the law, which made it harder for the government to win far-reaching sanctions against the company...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/themicrosofttrial/134568443_microsoft030.html



Corporations will out-spend and out-litigate the average citizen there isn't a thing a Libertarian will ever do to TILT the lop-sided playing field so it works evenly for everyone.

That's why Indymedia was founded in part, because of the GROSS INEQUITIES the Corporate World is forcing on people across the globe

who cares?

When you listen to liberal bullshit (Pacifica, Indymedia, NY Times, LA Times, etc.) it becomes immediately clear that liberals are really really really dumb.

When you look at issues Liberals attempt to create you can quickly see that most of them are non-issues. Perhaps the most ridiculous of all would be the demonization of the corporation.

That's just dumb, dumb, dumb.

Corporations have invented much of the technology enabling us to do things like surf the web, live to age 80+, eat well, and protect ourselves from terrorists.

Liberals, on they other hand, have given us NOTHING. That would be zilch, nada, zip squat, nothing.

So who do we value more? Liberals or Corporations?

Duh!!!!!!!!!!

...Although Wozniak is no longer affiliated with Apple Computer, he sets up computer equipment and programs, and teaches classes to children and adults, including teachers, at local schools. Wozniak has won numerous technology awards, including the National Medal of Technology, Inventors Hall of Fame and the Kilby Award. He is slated to receive the Heinz Award, given annually to a humanitarian who contributes to the arts, in Washington, D.C. But he will make the trip between performances of Candide...

...but Gates considers himself a Liberal Democrat.

He donated heavily to Clinton and the DNC.

As someone else pointed out - Microsoft is not a Monopoly. You do not have to buy their product. There are other Producers and a growing number of People are converting to Linux and dumping Windows.

Calling Microsoft a Monopoly is like saying McDonald's is a Monopoly because they sell more Hamburgers than anybody else.

What a riot. That you clowns have never bothered to learn Elementary Economics is becoming more and more apparent. You are simply offering a highly emotional argument completely devoid of any supporting facts.

Calling Microsoft a Monopoly is like calling a tail a leg.

"If a Dog has four legs and a Tail and you call the Tail a Leg how many Legs does the Dog have?

Four. Calling a Tail a Leg doesn't make it a Leg."

------- Abraham Lincoln

Judge Sporkin was troubled by a Microsoft internal memorandum that said: "The best way to stick it to Philippe is preannounce ... to hold off Turbo buyers." Arguably, the memorandum shows Microsoft's specific intent to hinder Borland's marketing by a preannouncement. Should that be illegal? Reasoning from securities fraud principles, Judge Sporkin said yes...

...The more general ANTITRUST RULE stipulates several conditions that can lead to a dominant firm being guilty of MONOPOLIZATION. First, the dominant firm is a monopolist if it intentionally uses tactics "not honestly industrial" to preserve its monopoly position. Alternatively, it is guilty if it uses such tactics in an attempt to gain a monopoly and there's a dangerous probability of success that the firm will gain or maintain a monopoly as a result.

Update

...Sporkin painted Microsoft as a company that has a monopoly in a field central to US well being, not only for the balance of this century but also for the next. Microsoft is so feared by its competitors (referring to the anonymous Gang of Three) that they are afraid to disclose their identity when they inform on it.

"The picture that emerges from these proceedings," according to Sporkin, is that Microsoft is so powerful "that the US government is either incapable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to this nation's economic well being." He said that the government "is so anxious to close this deal" that it came up with such a narrow interpretation of what is illegal vaporware that it gives Microsoft "a green light to engage in anticompetitive practices with impunity." Yet, "'vaporware' is a practice that is deceitful on its face and everybody in the business community knows it." Why else do they call it "vaporware"? he asked.

...that you would take time to dig up a reference, really does not refute the Point.

Monopoly has a specific definition. It means one producer in control of entire market - the only producer. If you are arguing that Microsoft may have had undue influence on the Market you are on more stable ground but by no means have proven your case. Microsoft is NOT a Monopoly.

In a Free Market, particularly when you speaking of an industry where entrance into the Market is relatively easy, someone attempting to secure a Monopoly is doomed to failure. Microsoft may well be the 800 Pound Gorilla in Software but they are beginning to see their position erode as others come into the Market. Linux is gaining ground day by day. IBM is considering a new O/S and Apple is gaining some of their lost Market Back. Apple has been forced to lower Prices because the Market spoke to them via declining sales.

It may be that Gates is a Hardball Player, and may even have stepped over the line (I am not a Gates defender or apologist but then I really don't have anything against him either.) but Microsoft is still not a Monopoly. The Market is responding by producing competitive alternatives - some of which will probably end up being better than Windows - it is even arguable that some are now.

I love you! Would you like an autographed photo of me?