[Am-info] Monopolies can be legal

[Joe Barr]

--=-K5KvIlvNEhfEme4i7w2D
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Who is arguing otherwise?


On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 21:43, Sujal Shah wrote:
>=20
> from http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html
>=20
> "Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful to monopolize, attempt=20
> to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize a line of commerce. It is=20
> significant that the statute does not speak in terms of the existence of=20
> a monopoly; rather, its focus is on the act of monopolization, which=20
> requires something more. The offense of monopolization  , which is not=20
> purely structural, has two elements: (1) possession of monopoly power in=20
> the relevant market, and (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that=20
> power."
>=20
> This was forwarded to me by a friend that happens to be a lawyer, and=20
> one that happens to be more aware of technology issues than most lawyers=20
> I've met.  The rest of the document is an interesting read, if you're=20
> interested in this sort of thing.  The political scientist in me can't=20
> resist this type of stuff. :-)
>=20
> So, repeat after me: Monopolies are not illegal. :-)
>=20
> I don't think my foot is anywhere near my mouth.
>=20
> Sujal
--=20
############################################################|
| "The difference between me and the surrealists is that    |
| I am a surrealist."                      Salvador Dali    |
#############################################################

--=-K5KvIlvNEhfEme4i7w2D
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA8z1vdAd/rkt3pFf4RAlYfAJ96W/GES4MBBzmcGQCGu/1+v5MhugCgmU2f
LCjvejRmEOxFNL0a4iJqUJo=
=ZNwq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-K5KvIlvNEhfEme4i7w2D--