Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
Christoph Simon writes:
> I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer you a legal definition of a monopoly,
> but ask Microsoft about their last big trial and that which still seem to
> be in process in the EU. Or wasn't that in the end about being a monopoly
> and taking unfair advantage of it?
The latter. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Taking unfair advantage of
it is.
> Here I've got a `provider' who provides nothing than privacy violating
> filters (causing absurd latencies) and tells me that he'll switch off my
> internet connection if I don't pay my monthly fee.
I have only one provider accessible via a local phone number: he went into
business first and no one has seen fit to go into competition with him in
this rural area. You seem to feel that he should be punished for "having a
monopoly". Why?
> It's like some protection fee to the mafia.
Is there something preventing you from going into competition with him? If
so _that_ is what you should be complaining about.
> Would you think that in the US a judge would accept the unilateral
> modification of a consumer's contract (Telefônica and Terra did this
> here), making you pay the double for less?
In some circumstances, yes. It depends on the details. If my provider was
to decide to double his rates I would have no legal recourse (other than
starting my own ISP, of course).
> Is there any company in the world which can do that without having the
> status of a monopoly?
Not generally. To repeat: in the US having a monopoly is not, in itself,
illegal. Consider copyrights and patents, for example.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: