Question about Monopolies

[Mickalino]

I've noticed in the last few years, there have been a lot of large, major corporations merging, or buying each other out. And I was wondering if this is actually a trend toward possible monopolies in certain markets, or if it is nothing to worry about, and just normal activity in the economy.

My fear was that if it turned into a trend and if large numbers of companies consolidated in different markets, the monopolies would create an economic disaster for consumers. Is this a realistic possibility, or does the government and the laws have things in place to protect and prevent that from happening ?

[Corcaigh]

I think it's an outrage that the Federal Trade Commission has a monopoly on reviewing mergers.

[Larry]

Disclaimer: IANAL, so I'll admit that there are probably a lot of people who know more about this than I do. OTOH, I've also observed that there are a lot of people who know considerably less than I, but who compensate by being offensive.

My perspective:

Roughly 10 years ago, Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position. Punishments were handed down.

Microsoft was able to appeal the punishments, and was able to get them reduced to the point where the court actually asked Microsoft to assign it's own punishment.

(The punishment that Microsoft imposed on itself was that it donated software (a product which costs Microsoft exactly nothing) to schools which hadn't purchased Microsoft products. (Thus expanding Microsoft's monopoly.))

The government objected to the concept of permitting convicted criminals to chose their own sentencing, but Microsoft was able to delay.

Until the Republicans took over the White House, and decided that actually punishing this particular convicted criminal wasn't worth even persuing.

Now why would I get the impression that our anti-trust laws really aren't going to protect consumers from monopolies any time soon?

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

The Redskins one is the best:

[Redskins Diehard]

Disclaimer: IANAL, so I'll admit that there are probably a lot of people who know more about this than I do. OTOH, I've also observed that there are a lot of people who know considerably less than I, but who compensate by being offensive.

My perspective:

Roughly 10 years ago, Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position. Punishments were handed down.

Microsoft was able to appeal the punishments, and was able to get them reduced to the point where the court actually asked Microsoft to assign it's own punishment.

(The punishment that Microsoft imposed on itself was that it donated software (a product which costs Microsoft exactly nothing) to schools which hadn't purchased Microsoft products. (Thus expanding Microsoft's monopoly.))

The government objected to the concept of permitting convicted criminals to chose their own sentencing, but Microsoft was able to delay.

Until the Republicans took over the White House, and decided that actually punishing this particular convicted criminal wasn't worth even persuing.

Now why would I get the impression that our anti-trust laws really aren't going to protect consumers from monopolies any time soon?

Please clarify what IAnal means. And what is has to do with Monopoly

[Mickalino]

Please clarify what IAnal means.

I'll second that

[Corcaigh]

Please clarify what IAnal means. And what is has to do with Monopoly

I am not a lawyer.

[Redskins Diehard]

I am not a lawyer.

That makes two of us

[Larry]

I'll second that

I Am Not A Lawyer.

[Mickalino]

I Am Not A Lawyer.

Thanks, glad you repeated it, because when Corcaigh said it, I thought he was saying he could not answer our question, because he was not a lawyer :doh: :laugh:

[Redskins Diehard]

I Am Not A Lawyer.

Okay, so nobody is a lawyer.

You're last name isn't Craig by chance?(sorry, for some reason that line plays out in the famous Senator's voice)

[chipwhich]

Disclaimer: IANAL, so I'll admit that there are probably a lot of people who know more about this than I do. OTOH, I've also observed that there are a lot of people who know considerably less than I, but who compensate by being offensive.

My perspective:

Roughly 10 years ago, Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position. Punishments were handed down.

Microsoft was able to appeal the punishments, and was able to get them reduced to the point where the court actually asked Microsoft to assign it's own punishment.

(The punishment that Microsoft imposed on itself was that it donated software (a product which costs Microsoft exactly nothing) to schools which hadn't purchased Microsoft products. (Thus expanding Microsoft's monopoly.))

The government objected to the concept of permitting convicted criminals to chose their own sentencing, but Microsoft was able to delay.

Until the Republicans took over the White House, and decided that actually punishing this particular convicted criminal wasn't worth even persuing.

Now why would I get the impression that our anti-trust laws really aren't going to protect consumers from monopolies any time soon?

Yeah and who would call Microsoft a monopoly now???

[Mickalino]

Suggestion to the general population - come up with a better acronym that means the same thing as "I Am Not A Lawyer" but spells something different.

Or you could end up with a male friend you were not expecting.....or at the very least, end up in the "out of context" thread.