monopolist

A monopolist doesn't have to make its moat unbreachable, it just needs to be insufficiently profitable to overcome.

That people are willing to spend huge amounts just to avoid the monopolist ISP's says a lot.

It's helpful to think of government services in this fashion: a service market that is dominated by a monopolist.

So, an OK replacement that comes with the monopolist OS installation and use that to beat the market leader.

The value of the feature to the alleged monopolist is irrelevant to the FTC/DOJ, solely the impact on competition.

The only thing the current copyright length is helping with, is establishing and perpetuating monopolist corporations.

So no, they didn't spend huge amounts of money just to avoid the monopolist ISPs as there are none servicing the area.

For Uber to throw their hands up and walk out of a market over regulation means that either they think like a small player or they think like a monopolist.

It's funny how this seems to be a phone company thing, in NL KPN (the old telco monopolist) has a claim on light green.

The cartel/monopolist economy, as created by Centralization, has it's own issues.

All of which Microsoft displaced with monopolist behavior and marketing money.

So that's the problem you are attempting to solve: how do you get a monopolist with no profit incentive to design better products and services?

Of course they "manage to beat" competitors, that's not hard for a monopolist.

"monopolist" is the best way to name the alternatives here, but I agree that Uber does something more akin to setting wages/commissions than creating a "market" for its contractors.

[a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition.").