Posted by Eric P. on 03/02/07 03:33

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:47:34 -0800, David C. hath written thusly
(in article <m2zm6w7f99.fsf@qqqq.invalid>):

> Eric P. <ericpNOSPAM06@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> There was an anti-trust act. That was supposed to solve the problems of
>> monopolies historically.
>
> You're referring to the Clayton and Sherman acts.
>
> They don't prohibit monopolies. They impose a set of extra-strict rules
> that a company must obey if it is a monopoly (as defined by the whims of
> whatever justice department happens to be in power at the time.)
>
> A monopoly can't do what smaller companies are allowed to do. For
> instance, offer deep discounts (even taking losses) on one product in
> order to promote a different product.
>
> But this is very different from actually banning the existence of
> monopolies.
>
> -- David

That was the reference, yes. Thank you for the clarification. I stand
corrected.

- E


==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
==============================================================

[Back to original message]