Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 1733555, member: 29643&quot;]In essence, the definition of monopoly being used would undermine the entire concept of a patent law system.</p><p><br /></p><p>After all, if I own a patent, I control a monopoly. Any patented ideas would be immediately revoked under anti-trust laws and mitigated to public domain. Again, monopolies have to do with commodity control, not end product distribution.</p><p><br /></p><p>Bell (AT&amp;T) held a monopoly and was forced to break-up since, in essence, it had such large scale that its existence as a single entity prevented any other potential phone utility providers from entering the marketplace. They had developed a national phone company that wasn&#039;t a government agency. This led to non-competitive pricing. After all, a true monopoly prevents entry into a marketplace. This barrier to entry allows the provider to set the price under the assumption of zero competition and known demand. As such, supply will never exceed demand, for the supplier would not need to drive any competition from the market.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in