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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (229300)	11/18/2009 11:36:14 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I have no problem with monopolies that provide good value. As long as they are providing the best value they will remain dominant. Once they stop providing a good value it opens the door for competition to step in with a better value. This can be a better product for the same price or a product that does essentially the same thing for a lower price. The only way that this model doesn't work is when the government steps in and prevents competitors from stepping in. A classic example is with the insurance industry. There is no good reason that we can't buy insurance across state lines. But because of government regulations, we can't. In an effort to avoid company dominance, the government has restricted competition and made it so we have a more expensive lesser product. Perhaps I'm missing something. Is it possible you view patents as government intervention in a free market? Possibly you think there should not be patents, just trade secrets? And if a competitor can figure out your trade secret they are free to use it? I'll assume that you are doing some free association and making stuff up as you go along. This has nothing to do with anything I have said and doesn't represent my views.