Intel to include DRM in new Pentium 4 series processors

[John R T Brazier]

>>JB continued to drivel:
>>They are not, however, a 'monopoly'. The fact that the EU has a poor grasp
>>of
>>English doesn't change this!

>This is a bit off-topic, but I find myself in the surprising position of
>being an expert (having studied  O-level economics many years ago!).
>'Monopoly' is not used in its common dictionary sense at all in this
>context, but in the sense of having sufficient market share to distort
>the market, and the 25% figure has been used as a rule of thumb for
>defining a monopoly since the 1930's to my knowledge.

Perhaps, but usually in a pejorative sense. The EU aside, I don't believe
legally 25% of the market means 'monopoly'.

The phrase 'monopoly' is rarely used in legislation - because, in fact, it
is
quite rare - and an excellent example is the original Sherman Anti-Trust Act
in the USA (1880ish). It was against control of trade due to market strength
(actually between states or other countries - not the internal populace).
Whatever the reasons for the act, they didn't call it the
'Anti-Monopoly' Act.

Monopolies are given - such as patents - but I still stick with with the
basic and original definition of monopoly, as, I believe, do the courts.
Otherwise, what word would you use for 100% dominance of the market?

You can argue that I should have used the phrase 'absolute monopoly',
but it doesn't roll of the tongue.

TTFN

John B

PS Sorry - wildly off-topic.

JB