[Am-info] What is a Monopoly?

[Mitch Stone]

In Microsoft's case, I don't think it matters much whether the relevant 
market is said to be personal computers or x86 personal computers. In 
the former market their share is around 90%; in the latter, something 
on the order of 95%, perhaps more. Either way, it's sufficient to exert 
market power.

As it happened Judge Jackson did use x86 personal computers as the 
relevant market. Microsoft can be said to have monopolized that market 
and Apple cannot be claimed to have similarly monopolized the PPC 
market because the "x86 PC market" refers to more than just a 
microprocessor -- it is an entire computer architecture, essentially 
residing in the public domain, which Microsoft effectively controls 
though they neither own nor manufacture it. If someone designed another 
personal computer architecture around x86 processors, I presume it 
would be defined as a separate and distinct market from the one 
Microsoft dominates.

Apple can't be said to control the PPC desktop operating system market 
by any logic. They control only the market for their own intellectual 
property: the Mac hardware architecture (which happens to use a PPC) 
and the MacOS. And that's exactly the way it's suppose to work.

Mitch

On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Paul Rickard wrote:

>     Bingo. Microsoft would have you believe that it is not a monopoly
> because on other platforms it's not so dominant. Servers, desktops,
> handhelds, washing machines with CPUs, game consoles... If you count 
> any
> computer system as part of the market, Microsoft is not a monopoly. But
> if you narrow the market too much, say they have a monopoly on x86
> desktop operating systems, you're also saying other companies, like 
> Apple
> (monopoly on PowerPC desktop operating systems), are just as bad. The
> market is hard to identify precisely, especially when you're an elderly
> semi-senile judge or legislator who has a secretary print all his 
> e-mail
> every morning.