Incessant repetition of this false statement like a mindless drone isn't going to make it true.
Absence of competition is the very definition of a monopoly, regardless of any overt attempt to control the market by the single participant. You can get a clue from the word itself: "mono-", meaning "one".
Whine about the name-calling all you want, you haven't said anything to earn respect.
Incessant ad hominem attacks lends no legitimacy to your argument.
Absence of competition is the very definition of a monopoly, regardless of any overt attempt to control the market by the single participant. You can get a clue from the word itself: "mono-", meaning "one".
If there is nothing preventing competition from entering the market then there can be no monopoly. By definition, a monopoly means exclusive ownership and control.
There is nothing preventing somebody from developing an OS of their own to compete with Microsoft. Therefore, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. I can tell you what is a monopoly. The US Post Office is. In fact, private letter carriers attempted to compete with the USPO in the past but were run out of business by the federal government through endless litigation. Lysander Spooner's American Letter Mail Company was one of those private businesses.
Another monopoly is the Food and Drug Administration. No other organizations can approve food and drugs for consumption. Even worse, when somebody is harmed by an FDA-approved drug the FDA is immune from liability.
For a long time cable-TV and phone companies had monopolies because local governments permitted only one company to run cabling. Fortunately, we have other options now such as wireless and satellite.
Whine about the name-calling all you want, you haven't said anything to earn respect.
Once again, more ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry that you're incapable of debating. You just seem unable to do anything but call people names.
Absence of competition is the very definition of a monopoly, regardless of any overt attempt to control the market by the single participant. You can get a clue from the word itself: "mono-", meaning "one".
According to your "logic", which I disagree with, Thomas Edison and every other inventor that took a never-before-seen product to market had a monopoly.
According to your definition of monopoly, if government outlawed monopolies there never would be newly invented or created products marketed.
Think First!