Games

16729 readers

509 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

Alan Wake 2 Still Hasn't Earned Back Its Budget (techraptor.net)

submitted 6 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Pointing out which meaning applies is how definitions work. One is enough.

So which is it? Because the only one that might apply is the last and that one has a complicated legal meaning that is multiple parts of which you only seem to care about a single part: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's the definition given by your own fucking source. The one you called "cherry-picking."

It's not "a single prong in a standard that has several," there's a list of meanings, and one of them applies.

That page even reminds you: not all monopolies are illegal. Maybe you should re-read it?

[–] DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Here, it's easy:

Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident.

Does not in fact say:

Then courts ask if that monopoly was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident.

The standard has multiple prongs. You might have "monopoly power" without in fact being a monopoly because being a monopoly requires meeting a legal standard where being the in the leading position of a market is not the singular qualifier.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're quoting a sentence that defines anticompetitive practices, not a sentence that defines a monopoly.

Here is a sentence from the same page that defines a monopoly:

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

[–] DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

Which you seem to take for a granted, but won't provide even a theoretical for how that might have happened here?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago

Ability means "they can," not "they did."