On Mar 31, 2004, at 5:55 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 09:06:57PM +1000, marina wrote: > : > : SR wrote: > : > : >How can you say that MS has a monopoly on the market when we're > sitting > : >here using something else? > [...] > : > : You don't call this monopoly? I'm not good at semantics, so if you > would > : like to propose an alternative definition, I'm happy to listen :-) > > Steven is being too pendantic, arguing that if M$ was a true > by-the-book > monopoly, there would be no choice at all, there would be no Macs, no > Linux, no *BSD, etc. in existence for consumers to own. It's the same > difference between the dictionary definition of monopoly and the > real-world practical monopoly. No, I'm not making a pedantic distinction, I'm saying that your "modern" definition of monopoly reverses cause and effect by focusing on something like "market share" and Microsoft, while ignoring the cause. SR