If a company achieves a monopoly, they should get a letter from the DoJ saying "Game Over, you won!"
By
kybernetikos
on November 09, 2007
The aim of the business game is pretty much to get a monopoly, but as soon as you manage, you've broken the markets.
At the moment, the theory is that monopolies are held to higher standards of behavior than other companies, but it's not until you're actually taken to court for your behaviour that it's legally established whether or not you have a monopoly.
It'd just be much better, if as soon as a company achieved a monopoly, they got a "Game over, you won" letter, give them a ticker tape parade and a nice trophy (maybe in the shape of a silver dollar sign for your first monopoly, gold for your second, platinum for your third...), and then make all their intellectual property free, and possibly break the company up along business lines.
Agreed
11
1
91.7% 8.3%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Similar claims
- 4-20 All monopolies are beneficial in some way.
- 17-5 Sometimes, the benefit of a monopoly outweighs the harm.
- 11-1 "[M]onopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good."
- 10-0 IPv4 addresses are a form of currency. Current owners of large blocks of IPv4 space have a lot to lose (in terms of currency devaluation) from IPv6 adoption.
- 3-20 Mesh networks will end big telecom.
Discussion (4)
But then there would be no incentive to become one.
I don't actually agree that the point of business is this.
I own a company. We do not seek a monopoly in anything. Most companys don't. The logic that states "we need to wipe out our competition" is what leads to that and that logic is only understood by people who are in for a shout on the steak knives.
Fair point, but...
The aim of many (particularly publicly traded companies in the USA where the law forces them to have this as their aim) businesses is to enhance shareholder value. Shareholder value is most enhanced when you've got a monopoly.
Even if your aim is to be successful and profitable, you're most profitable when you're a monopoly. Destroying the competition is all part of that.
That there exist companies that run on altogether more sane lines I do not dispute.
It depends how narrowly you define share holder value. The regulatory authorities would argue that becomming a monopoly brings upon you penalties which, if you were looking after shareholders properly, you would have avoided.