Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Which doesn't change that that's not exactly true. One doesn't refer to any company's exclusive programs or products as a "monopoly." To do so is a perverse stretch of the definition. Besides, the original poster I replied to wasn't referring to KU as the monopoly. They clearly said that KU fuels Amazon's monopoly. So I doubt very highly that they were suggesting that KU fuels KU's monopoly. Or even that KU fuels Amazon's KU monopoly. That would be silly. So no, they were clearly suggesting that Amazon itself is a monopoly which the KU program helps fuel (not to mention that @FrustratedReader has already made their "Amazon is a monopoly" claim clearly and quite often). Which is, of course, completely imaginary by any recognized definition of monopoly.
I'm often amazed at how MR members can take the simple unambiguous words that are right in front of their eyes and twist them into something silly and unsupportable.
|
Technically monopoly refers to a specific market, so it's not the wild stretch you think it is. I agree that one shouldn't refer to KU as a monopoly, but monopoly depends on how you define the specific market. Apple was charged with anti-trust a number of years ago when the other party tried to define the market as computers manufactured by Apple. Apple won the case, but it's not exact unprecedented to use the word that way.