How so? Not a malevolent monopoly in any sense. I still do not understand the antitrust case to be some sort of proof of monopoly -- the court settled for them making public the implementation of certain API's, and allowed them to continue shipping IE with their OS (as they should -- how else would people download a web browser? Force everyone to buy one at the store and install them via CD?)
EDIT: incredible how many downvotes I've received on this thread, as I continue waiting for that example :)...
What exactly constitutes "malevolence", in your view? The disadvantages of monopolies are inherent and extend far beyond mere price gouging. Your argument seems to be that if a monopolistic company doesn't innovate (at the same pace they would if they had stiff competition) then some nimble upstart will easily overtake them. But that's not how the world works. If the incumbent has all the patents and all the money, nimble upstarts can be combatted in all sorts of ways beyond "fair" competition - they can buy them (as Facebook does to all upstart social networks that gain a foothold), sue them unfairly and bleed them dry (as Creative did to Audigy), or use their market position to change the rules faster than a competitor can keep up (Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy).
Of course, if you won't accept any example of monopoly that involves unfair government privilege, you neglect the fact of regulatory capture - once a company gets to a certain size, it can often buy its way into an unfair advantage (this is the usual order of things, rather than government arbitrarily picking a company and then it becoming a monopoly).
Malevolence as would be described by the CONSUMER (low quality and/or high prices). Something like Comcast, a successful business whose customers typically hate it, and which is deeply entrenched as a 'utility' due to its foothold in local municipalities.
> If the incumbent has all the patents
Is that not a form of government licensing?
> sue them unfairly and bleed them dry (as Creative did to Audigy)
Is that not exploiting flaws in the governing system? Wouldn't the best solution be to fix the flaws, rather than create a workaround to attempt to fix abuses of more fundamental problems?
> you neglect the fact of regulatory capture - once a company gets to a certain size, it can often buy its way into an unfair advantage
I don't neglect that at all -- that is the problem to solve. Obviously, humans are not perfect so no government will ever be, but we should strive to solve more fundamental problems than to layer our legal system in thousands of pages of bandaids, which have done nothing to solve the Comcasts of the world.
> Malevolence as would be described by the CONSUMER (low quality and/or high prices)
So how does this not heavily make MS malevolent? MS has done very malevolent things specifically against the consumer. They set back browser technology many years. They write majorily closed source software. They autoinstalled windows 10 onto client hardware without permission and using dark patterns. Windows 8/10 may have some internal technical improvements over xp/7, but they forced in tons of anti-consumer changes like ads, telemetry, removed settings, removed features, undoing user preferences, etc. Just this week my device plays audio out the speakers and headphones when I plug in headphones. Ten years ago you would have said "lol android or Linux will be stable one day". No, it was windows 10. I can forgive early versions of software I didn't pay for when it's a little unstable. But late versions of software I pay for maybe once every four years?
In fact, I challenge you to name one monopoly that isn't malevolent. Bonus points if it's government ran (oh no!) and not intentionally underfunded by Republicans.
> They set back browser technology many years.
> They write majorily closed source software.
> using dark patterns
Sounds like you have some personal bones to pick with companies YOU dislike, and yet the average consumer/company does not say "I hate Microsoft Windows" when they buy a Windows desktop (or 1000) (like they might when the purchase Comcast, which is closer to a real monopoly). Even if it seems to you like there is a predominantly negative sentiment around Microsoft, realize that HN and techie circles are little bubbles that do not well describe the market as a whole.
Every malevolent monopoly needs to be sustained by government force, especially the worst monopolies of all -- governments. The funny part about the Microsoft example is that their biggest clients are governments, especially the US government.
> In fact, I challenge you to name one monopoly that isn't malevolent.
Read this entire thread -- there are plenty of examples. Google and Amazon are modern examples with great products. I actually like Windows 10 a lot as well, even though I had to make some tweaks and Microsoft isn't really a monopoly anymore.
> Bonus points if it's government ran (oh no!) and not intentionally underfunded by Republicans.
Careful not to let your personal ideology prevent you from learning new things (applies to everyone). But I'll give you some examples: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac :)
> Sounds like you have some personal bones to pick with companies YOU dislike
No evidence of this, I only used facts.
> Even if it seems to you like there is a predominantly negative sentiment around Microsoft, realize that HN and techie circles are little bubbles that do not well describe the market as a whole.
Not important, economic damage isn't measured in non-techies feelings.
> Careful not to let your personal ideology prevent you from learning new things
EDIT: incredible how many downvotes I've received on this thread, as I continue waiting for that example :)...