To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (59654 ) 1/30/2005 5:48:12 AM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559 Elroy, that's a well-structured review of the amazing new theory about wealth as a measure of energy, talent and charm. Thanks. While $ill had some inherited help, he's about as far from a Trustafarian as they come. He seems to have inherited not much wealth, but a lot of paternal and no doubt maternal support during his formative years. His father obviously thought him worthy of backing and supporting, rather than excommunicating, so $ill was obviously a decent sort of son. That's charm! His father obviously thought he had the talent and energy to back. A drunken, drugged, dissolute, layabout son would not have garnered paternal support. The ratio of created to inherited wealth is so high, that the inheritance can be discounted in this instance. I don't know about the breach of contract items and from your post I can't determine whether these were material breaches in terms of his total business efforts. MSFT is a big company and I dare say all big companies get into legal and contractual disputes from time to time, even with the best will in the world. The 'criminal anti-trust violations' have been of some interest to me and they have been a joke. The essential ingredient in MSFT's offences is that they have a LOT of money and a LOT of lawyers can make a lot of money from the situation. The way they create a 'monopoly' is by tightly circumscribing the 'market'. Rather than calling 'software' the market, or 'cyberspace software' or 'PC-powered cyberspace software' the market, they call 'PC-powered cyberspace operating system software if it has a browser built in with more than 80% market share' or some such dopey definition of the 'monopoly'. They weren't really knee-jerk conclusions. I've been on the case for decades. High returns on investment come from being special. Being special comes from things like being the best managers, having a great brand, having created a great network effect, having created great patented technology, having created a business with high entry and exit costs. As you say, in commodity markets, returns on investment are asymptotic towards bank interest rates. Those with energy, talent and charm are the ones who create the technology and patents, the network effects and the brands. <§ … When an industry earns higher than normal market returns, as the pharmaceutical industry does, is a strong indication of monopolistic practices. > As I mentioned previously, all transactions are transient monopolies but some are more lasting than others. Those with long-lasting monopolies make the big profits. The corner store selling a can of Coca Cola enjoys a monopoly, but an ephemeral one, because next time, the same customer might buy from the shop next door. But on the first purchase, it's a monopoly because I define the "market" as being at that time and place, with the drink stored at a certain temperature and height above the floor level, within an area of 10 square metres, requiring the customer to go to the effort of walking next door to break the monopoly - an obviously abusive monopoly practise. The shopkeeper should have to stock the other shopkeeper's products too, not to mention all sorts of other drinks. Of course they don't do that because the monopoly is trivial and ephemeral, of no great financial import with no profit for the lawyers' guild and judicial pontifications and politicians' strutting of consumer concern. As you can now see, this new theory is quite robust, though its accuracy is questionable, reproducibility dodgy and repeatability pathetic. But hey, as they say, Rome wasn't built in a day and Einstein pondered his gravitational constant for decades. I just need a good gravitational constant to correct for randomness, aka luck. Mqurice