decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple has a monopoly in tablets... Not! | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple has a monopoly in tablets... Not!
Authored by: Tyro on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT
My definition, which is not the legal definition, is that more than 30% of the
market constitutes a monopoly. At such point the rules against running an
abusive monopoly should take effect.

N.B.: While I consider monopolies to be intrinsically bad, I will acknowledge
that there are "natural monopolies". All such should be extremely
tightly regulated, with the regulators forbidden to EVER accept any favors,
cash, or other remuneration (including a job) from those they either currently
or previously regulated.

Unnatural monopolies should be regularly broken up, with due care given to
ensure that nobody loses value. Unless they are determined to have been
abusive, in which case they should be dismantled into multiple totally separate
companies, not having even a single board member in common, and with no one of
them having over 10% of the market. (I think that's being generous.) Again,
the regulators should be prohibited from accepting any form of remuneration from
any of the companies regulated. This extends even to campaign contributions
should they decide to run for office. And it includes gifts as well as ALL
quid-pro-quo agreements.

So, do I feel Apple has a monopoly on tablets? I don't know. I haven't been
studying the market. But I sure wouldn't feel secure asserting that they
didn't.

(There's lots of sticky places here, e.g., "Just how do you define the
market?".)

N.B.: Consistent with my position about, I am opposed to patents UNLESS the
patent holder is under tight monopoly regulation. And even then I remain
dubious about their being a social good. Since Apple claims to control several
patents, I believe they should be regulated as a monopoly.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple has a monopoly in tablets... Not!
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 07:30 AM EDT
You don't define a monopoly based on whether there exists any competition. Microsoft was and is a monopoly in desktops, but there was always some competition.

It has to do with market share and dominance. And according to this report, Apple has more than a 60% share in tablets.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )