131–140 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did they prove that Google was plotting that scheme?
I don't know the specifics of this case, but Google did start charging for Maps last year for commercial users, at least in the US. That may be enough to prove intent?
Thomas Sowell gives a nice introduction on predatory pricing here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html From Sowell's article: It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases -- punis…
Your equivalent is, imho, incorrect. See it that way, when does predatory begins? As a matter of Fact Google Maps is already the biggest on the market with a price next to 0 for users. If we would compare it to something in real life it would: "Somebody has given to a group of people a serious death threat". Then in that case you'd need a punishment. Anyway, I read some of the comments on this story and I believe tak…
Also I don't like that logic of "they are the biggest player, so they must be guilty".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Competition dies when rewards are removed If a monopolist offers a product for free just because they have plenty of cash to do so, all rewards to compete in that market are removed. That kills competition stone dead, and that's why we have laws against it all over the world, including Silicon Valley. Guarding the free market against monopolist abuse is standard operating procedure in all capitalist countries. Bott…
A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can th…
And the means by which they do it is with their voice and their vote, not their wallets.
People are more than just consumers. Consumer behavior is driven by many other factors then what people actually want, and the free market does not necessarily reflect the will of the people.
Free will is more than just being able to decide whether or not to consume shit.
Reporter totally misses the point. The point is that google provided google maps for free. That is great. except when all other competition dies (because who can compete with a better, freer version of your product?) google starts charging pretty rediculous rates. That move in itself is what contributed to the ruling. OSM is free for everyone. It is a wiki. If OSM destroys google, bing, etc, and then decides to go on…
So the answer to a monopolist commoditizing a market is... to introduce a cartel? Because this is basically what this judgement argues: Google should charge something in line to what its competitors do, and forget about any downward pressure on prices. I'm not a free-market zealot, but this sort of ruling is really bad for small players. Googlers understand the internet and so they make money while lowering prices fo…
If Google is forced to charge the same prices as small mapping companies, those companies should have less of a disadvantage. It's not really a cartel if anyone can join. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea, but at least I understand why France is trying it.
Thomas Sowell gives a nice introduction on predatory pricing here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html From Sowell's article: It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases -- punis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can th…
The governments are (local) monopolies that supply a product(customers) to businesses on the governemnts terms. So, using your logic businesses can choose on moral or pragmatic grounds not to buy from these monopolies (i.e. set up in another country). Please continue to argue how a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a good thing while arguing a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a bad…
There is no contradiction.
A successful business progressing to the point of an earned "monopoly", is still beholden to both competitors and a free market. It has neither violence nor coercion as means to enforce its interests. However, a government monopoly (note the lack of quotes), retains the privilege to force by means of violence any that refuse its product. If you refuse to pay taxes, you will go to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, you will be forced to go to jail. If you refuse to be forced to go to jail against your life, your life will be taken from you. You are not free in this transaction; there is no nobility in the greed of the government to take what it wants at your expense.
It would serve you well to brush up on the definition of a monopoly, specifically as Webster defines it[1]:
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
Please do not co-opt the word monopoly so trivially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, this kind of law does not make any sense. In the case of carrefour, since they are charging such high prices nowadays, what prevents a bunch of farmers to associate themselves and open their own mall to sell cheaper and regain market share? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They just can't be bothered. Lack of competition is not only about big brands killing small ones. It's also part of the culture. It's been a…
Actually, this kind of law does not make any sense. In the case of carrefour, since they are charging such high prices nowadays, what prevents a bunch of farmers to associate themselves and open their own mall to sell cheaper and regain market share? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They just can't be bothered. Nothing? Never had any experience in retail business ownership, right? For starters, because Carrefour has a HU…
"This is the end of a two-year battle, a decision without precedent," said the lawyer for Bottin Cartographes, Jean-David Scemmama."
French candle makers http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. That's exactly what I said and that's what the original commenter said too I thought.
Yes, I'm the original commenter. I was talking about the browser. Actually, my point had very little to do with Netscape itself. I was merely pointing out that an analogous situation has happened before, and ultimately, the browser market (can we call it a market) didn't turn out to be that monopolistic distopia. On the contrary, from the consumer point of view, many browsers are easily available for free. What's to…