[stale2002]

Common misconception. A monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is using that monopoly/market power to keep out competitors.

Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example.

If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.

[scarface74]

That is not in fact “illegal”. If it were always “illegal” then Apple, Microsoft (Xbox), Sony, Nintendo, Roku, etc would all be breaking the law.

[stale2002]

I already responded to this in another thread, but the only thing that I will do here is encourage you to read up on the publicly available, and well accepted information that the government has released.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. "

[scarface74]

If it were so cut and try that anyone could be an expert based on reading one FTC rule, why has it taken 30 years and none of the platform vendors - including the console makers - been taken to court? Maybe HN posters aren’t lawyers?

[stale2002]

> If it were so cut

Are you straight up denying the government link that I posted to you?.

> Maybe HN posters aren’t lawyers?

I have posted direct links to government information here.

If you are going to claim that the FTC website is lying to everyone, then I am not sure what to tell you. You are too far lost to ever be convinced of anything.

This is the FTC website. They are the government. They are the experts. They decide what is right or wrong. They are the primary source here!

The only opinion that matters here is the government's, as they are the ones who enforce the law!

I think that I am going to listen to the opinion of the government lawyers, over the opinion of someone who is straight up denying the government approved information that I posted.

[scarface74]

So if lawyers could prove their case just by citing the FTC’s website, they wouldn’t need to go to law school would they?

It is your opinion that the FTC summary of the law applies to Apple or a case like Apple’s unless you can find another actual real world case where a similar situation resulted in government action.

No, an antitrust case where two players collided isn’t the same thing.

[stale2002]

> It is your opinion that the FTC summary

It is my opinion that you seem to be dismissing well accepted information about the law, that is available on government websites, and that is uncontroversial among the experts.

The information that is well accepted, and available, from the government, is that you do not need to be a literal singular firm, in order to be subject to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act.

Instead, only having significant market power is enough to be subject to it.

This is an uncontroversial statement.

Please do not rephase my argument to be anything other than what I just said here.

> No, an antitrust case where two players collided isn’t the same thing.

The government link that I posted, is in reference to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act, which is regarding market power that a company has.

I am not really sure what to tell you, if you are going to deny the well accepted, and completely uncontroversial opinion among experts, and the government, that is that you do not need to be a singular, literal monopoly, in order for section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act to apply.

[danudey]

> Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example.

Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact.

> If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.

Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?

[nicoburns]

To be fair to microsoft, they really seem to hav gotten their act together in the aftermath of that event. Admittedly they seem to be slipping back into some bad habits recently. But they seem to be a good deal better behaves than Apple and other big tech companies for now. And I suspect a lot of that is to do with the lawsuit. IMO the world would be a better place if anti-trust laws were enforced stronger than they currently are.

[nodamage]

> Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows

This was actually overturned during the appeal. Whether the act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was ultimately never decided by the courts. (The OEM stuff and other actions by Microsoft were ruled to be antitrust violations, however.)

[Aeolun]

> Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact.

Umm, yeah, but Apple has this policy on their phones permanently, and I haven’t seen any regulation against that yet.

[xmprt]

Could be the case for Windows RT but I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case because RT has a small market share.

[boogies]

> Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?

IDK about RT but IIRC this is the main distinguishing factor of 10S

[stjohnswarts]

That was 20 years ago.