A monopoly is not defined by the possiblity that there are other products available for purchase on the market, but rather how many products have been purchased and are in use.
Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.
That latter definition is in fact a reasonable counter-argument to Windows being a monopoly (people did buy Macs), and that's why Microsoft got in trouble for the deals they cut to try and crush Netscape, not for making a more popular OS than Apple did.
You can't define a monopoly as "your competitors aren't popular" because otherwise it'd be illegal to invent new product categories, as at the start you'd be the only player in the new space. You can't define it that way for another reason: it punishes success.
FWIW the definition of a patent is a "time-limited monopoly on working an invention", so all new products that are patented are monopolies by definition.
As the sibling comment rightly says, monopolies are acceptable. But, as the EU clearly point out, a greater onus is put on monopolies to avoid abusing their monopoly power.
That would work if patents were enforceable but they really aren't. I can't see a company that (re)invented a new product category where no competitors emerged because of patents.
A monopoly is exactly that. Mono means one. Thats the root of the word. What you are describing is a dominant position, which is completely different since its a relative definition.
> Nevertheless, the Commission investigated to what extent competition for end users (downstream), in particular between Apple and Android devices, could indirectly constrain Google's market power for the licensing of Android to device manufacturers (upstream). The Commission found that this competition does not sufficiently constrain Google upstream for a number of reasons, including:
They are not punished for their behavior in the downstream market (in which they barely participate). They are punished for their behavior in the upstream market. We consumers do not participate in the upstream market.
Nevertheless, the EU commission considered whether the lack of a monopoly in the downstream market ameliorated the monopoly effects in the upstream market and found it did not.
This is talking about from the perspective of phone manufacturer. As a phone manufacturer you can't license iOS so that's out. You can really only license Android and if you do you have to also install Google Apps, Chrome, and make Google the default search engine on your phone.
You are not required to license Android to use Android. AOSP and other versions forked from AOSP do exist.
There are.other mobile OSes available as well. I'm sure Microsoft will gladly let you use their OS for the right price, KaiOS, Ubuntu phone OS could be resurrected, you could role your own, I'm sure Symbian is for sale somewhere, how about Meego.
>In particular, Google has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
If you want to have Google apps on your phone you can't sell any forked android version.
Microsoft never had a monopoly in operating systems ever in it's history either. You could install CP/M on IBM XTs and you could run OS/2 or Linux or a plethora of other UNIXes on later IBMs and clones instead of Windows.
Doesn't mean they hadn't had market control due to it's market share.
The problem with this definition is that it also assumes that if you have 75%+ market share you're likely having a similar share of the profits which is not the case here. If you take profit into account it's really at best a 50-50 market for Google.
I agree that assumption is the wrong word. But do you have examples of monopolies that didn't take the profits and control the pricing of the markets they control?
Monopolies are not based on the profit but market share. Yes Apple has a very profitable niche but that does not mean Android does not have a near-monopoly on smartphones.
No, a monopoly is controlling a market to the point where competition is restricted via controlling supply or other means. A company can have 100% market share and not be a monopoly (which is always what happens when a new market emerges).
(Not OP:) In theory I agree. As soon as you have IPR like patents and copyright that are protecting the new product then you're inhibiting access for other companies; that is probably the case in a lot of new markets.
So if price pressure from consumers forces down your profit then you should be allowed to exploit a monopolistic position to leverage profits in another sector?
Like, own all cinemas in a country but home-viewing keeps profit low, so now it's fine to only allow people to visit your cinemas if they buy clothes from your clothing company?
A better example would be you own 75%+ of the cinemas but revenue wise you only control 50% of it. And in that case I think it's fair to do it. If they would force Apple out that would be a problem, but instead they even give you the basis for your own cinema for free (in contrast to Apple).
Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.