Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael who wrote (37957)	8/12/1999 7:32:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Monopoly <MSFT might have to reduce OS prices to fend the growing anti-MSFT sentiment, showing itself in RHAT> Michael that can't possibly be right. We have all been told that Microsoft has a monopoly and Janet Reno [and sulky Bill C who lost to $ill G at golf, brainpower and didn't even get a political payment of $$$ in compensation] has been running a case against Microsoft for ages to prove the point. The monopoly is allegedly so powerful that $ill can leverage his position into other things and force people to buy those too, even though they are allegedly inferior]. Apparently $ill should only have one good idea or one area of success. Now you are saying that a monopoly is having to lower prices. This does not compute. Monopolies raise prices, not lower them [in commonsense anyway which is very common but usually wrong]. The only explanation I can come up with is that Microsoft never had a monopoly in the dreaded sense. No more so than any business which sells anything, except that $ill's monopoly was of value to everyone and he could get a LOT of money for it. Other businesses have weaker, less profitable monopolies such as occupying a particular street corner selling newspapers. I think people don't understand what the word 'monopoly' means in detailed reality. Not the glib concept that is usually used, but in actual hard facts. It's similar to race. Yes, there are races but really there aren't. There are just billions of individuals with their own unique DNA. Sure, there is lots of a particular section of DNA common in one area or family but there is really no dividing line other than between an individual and all other living things. DNA clones are the closest you'll get to a real 'race' - other claims are just inaccurate generalisations. Qualcomm has a much more powerful monopoly, protected by patents and needed by everyone on earth. Puters were never used by more than a few hundred million people. Not even 1bn. WWeb phones will be used by billions. Q! will enjoy a monopoly on all of that and will be able to leverage that monopoly into other monopolies. Let's hope the increasingly absurd trial of Microsoft will show the futility and absurdity of anti-monopoly laws in general and Qualcomm will not have to face the same debilitating harrassment and will be able to concentrate on maximizing profits and production and innovation in new areas of monopoly. All business is a transient monopoly. Read some George Gilder stuff - he's got it figured out. IBM was alleged to have a world crushing monopoly. Tell that to the IBM shareholders 10 years ago! It's really just envy for governments to prosecute monopolies [the bad ones are government enforced monopolies such as the old Ma Bell because you can't fight City Hall - they pull out the guns and stop you competing]. Sure is a nice day but it would have been better if Janet Reno and Bill Clinton had real jobs. Mqurice PS: Incidentally, we are getting new rubbish bins in Auckland so that Bill C and the APEC gang will be impressed during their partying in a few weeks. Yeltsin isn't coming and he just sacked Stepashin who was. We'll have the KGB crook maybe.