Quote:
Originally Posted by Adoby
Since calibre/Kovid isn't a seller of a good or service, but give calibre away freely, and even allow anyone to also copy and modify calbre and give it again, can that definition of monopoly really be said to be relevant?
|
A seller has a broad meaning in this context. It is the 'provider' of the product or service. A charity can be a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterRed
But there are other products, they are listed in an earlier post.
|
If there are other products, it isn't a 'pure' monopoly, but nevertheless a monopoly as long as it controls the majority of the market (and in calibre's case almost all of it). Microsoft was declared a monopoly when Apple, linux and unix systems were available in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterRed
The fact that a product has a dominant position an open market does not make it a monopoly...
|
Sure it does. "a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which
significant barriers to entry prevent other firms from entering the market". Remember Microsoft? That was in an open market. Others could have built better OSes (actually some did) but it is still a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterRed
...and achieving market dominance by offering a superior product and/or services is not a crime or malfeasance...
|
I never said so, anywhere in my post. As long as you accept it is a monopoly, I am fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterRed
However, you are also free make a complaint to Eric Holder at the US DoJ or Joaquín Almunia at the EUC or the anti-trust authorities in a country or province of your choosing - good luck with that; watch out for the laws regarding making frivolous claims.
|
That was just stupid/silly of you to end your comment with that, after making a good attempt at (what I thought) a genuine debate. No comments.
Calibre has complete control of the market and it is a monopoly in every sense of the word.