Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.
Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is
NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.
Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.
Now going back to your arguments
immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:
immortalfrieza said:
Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
I'm really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.
It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.
Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:
immortalfrieza said:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again
NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).
immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):
immortalfrieza said:
They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.
Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.
No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.
Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.
I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of
viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded
"viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.
Wiki URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly