Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

But it's also distinct from making "features" to control your monopoly.


sort by: page size:

"Monopoly" does not mean "two companies have lots of knowhow that competitors might like".

That's not what a monopoly is.

That's not what a monopoly is.

An "industry" can, almost by definition, not be a monopoly.

It's more than monopoly. It's monopoly combined with strong lock-in.

That isn't what a monopoly is.

Yeah what is it with people throwing "monopoly" at everything? Just because they're an industry leader doesn't mean they're anything close to a monopoly.

That's not what monopoly means.

That not what it's means to be a monopoly.

It’s not about being a monopoly, it’s leveraging their power in other markets to have an advantage in this market.

If you list two things, it’s not a monopoly.

There's a difference between having a monopoly and being the best product in the market.

All of these look like advantages if you're building a monopoly and have a contempt for anything that slows that down.

That's not a monopoly, that's just advertising.

You don't get it, what you describe is not necessarily a monopoly.

That's not what the word "monopoly" means though...

That's not a natural monopoly

It's "monopolistic" not monopoly. There is a huge difference.

> exclusive control of supply

Is not the only, nor even the most useful, definition of a monopoly. And there's also not a magic moment where one second you're not a monopoly, and the next second you are when user X+1 signs up. It's a gradual process and that's why it is such a huge area of law.

next

Legal | privacy