Monopolies should be illegal

Explanation for Apple v Samsung: The courts have interested Apple has having the monopoly on the IPAD via a patent, it clearly states this numerous times within the transcripts: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com... , http://www.slate.com... The reason for this claim in the opening argument was to clearly illustrate AGAIN that the courts interpret a monopoly via a trademark, or patent. In this case it was a patent that established the monopoly on the IPAD. Therefore, there is a fine line between competitive companies and a monopoly. Wal-Mart is a monopoly: Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) is known for passing on its low-cost advantages to the customer. For example, the article points to a UBS Warburg report suggesting that food prices are 14% lower in markets where Wal-Mart competes. But as the authors note, there are several overwhelming negatives. For one, the company has dominated its suppliers. Wal-Mart, which owns a hefty 30% of the U.S. consumer staples market and 15% to 20% of all music and video sales, plays a role in determining what gets sold. For example, the company has forced record companies to produce clean versions of explicit-label CDs or risk losing out on sales. And based on the complaints of a few customers, modern male magazines such as Maxim, Stuff, and FHM have been removed from store shelves. And if you think that's a problem, Wal-Mart accounts for 28% of Dial's (NYSE: DL ) sales, 24% of Del Monte Foods' (NYSE: DLM ) sales, and 23% of Clorox's (NYSE: CLX ) sales. If Wal-Mart has too much power over these companies now, what will happen when Wal-Mart's share hits 50% at the end of this decade? Among other negatives, the article points to the fact that Wal-Mart employees earn 20% less than those at unionized supermarkets. In addition, Wal-Mart's entry into new markets has forced the closure of existing stores: According to Business Week, "for every Wal-Mart supercenter that opens in the next five years, two other supermarkets will close." And this is done without creating new jobs. Which brings me to the monopoly on pricing which you state without evidence is not true" According to a Retail Forward report cited in the article, 30 supermarkets have "closed since Wal-Mart saturated Oklahoma City." Think about this: Wal-Mart is successful because it can offer lower prices than anybody else. But what if nobody else exists to compete? In business classes, you hear stories of the unacceptable practice of predatory pricing -- financially stable companies pricing at a loss until weaker competitors exit the marketplace. Today, the accepted business practice is to actually create value. Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV ) , for example, can offer lower prices because of operating efficiency. As capacity is removed from an industry, pricing power is created. http://www.fool.com... GM is a monopoly: I will try and keep this segment short as the original reason it was raised was for purely peripheral reasons. However, to ram home my point: GM has been convicted on several occasions for being a monopoly and manipulating the market e.g. http://www.trainweb.org.... http://www.unc.edu... GOING FORWARD: As I have responded to your attacks and provided evidence to the contrary, I wish to return to my original arguments. 1.Monopolies do not benefit the customer: Yes they do for the reasons I have already stated. One being they pass on cheaper prices, provide market research via their financial power which in turn brings what the customer wants e.g. prices, products, services, etc, and can reach the most remote parts of the country e.g. my video evidence of Wal-mart opening in Grundy VA. 2.Reason 2: Monopolies do not benefit workers: you have conceded yourself that yes they do. I will say no more on the matter and rest my case. 3.Reason 3: Monopolies allow the separation of the classes: As before, there is no evidence to suggest this. I again refer back to my original statements. In regards to my evidence, I cannot be there to take you through it step by step, but may I suggest following the instructions on the website. You will see that it states the median average household income several times. Try and click on a state. Concluding: You have failed to research the evidence I have given. You have failed to give or back any claims you make by failing to give evidence. Furthermore, you have ignored the majority of my arguments and gone onto to postulate on other matters. I have now defined my terms for your better understanding. You have also conceded that I was right. My spelling and grammar is not bad considering I do not turn 13 until next week. Additionally, it is premature to suggest I had lost in that department already considering I still had another post! Advise: If you raise claims without evidence, they can be dismissed without evidence. On this occasion I have provided plenty regardless.