Well, my current conclusion with my post is that wording is very very hard :-). What I said is "I want to show small-ish negative impact of a big tech monopoly". It will not prove it's all bad, even though it'll only give examples of where this is bad
> I think it would be very interesting to explore the boundaries of monopoly, and to look at cases where monopolies are probably a good thing.
Let's just say that the current tendency is to think that monopolies are fine, and I'd like to help reverting that. Yes your examples are worst discussing, and I have some of my own.
For instance, I definitely acknowledge that Android's monopoly helped whole unrelated sectors. But I also believe that innovation would be much better served if Android was opensource-in-spirit and maintained by something like the Linux Foundation.
> It’s going to be pretty easy to dunk on obviously harmful monopolies.
If it was, they would already have been ruled illegal? In Europe, I can't really name any "obviously harmful monopolies"
I think it would be very interesting to explore the boundaries of monopoly, and to look at cases where monopolies are probably a good thing.
For instance, trademarks are a monopoly, but I don’t think many of us want any company to be able to co-opt brand names. That seems pretty clear.
Getting less obvious, IP-protected interfaces like GoPro mounts or those dumb Kureig coffee pods. Nobody likes those proprietary interfaces, and they do give monopoly control, but are they economically bad?
And how about console games, where all of the makers subsidize low Hw margins (therefore higher sales) with monopoly control and a cut of game publishing. Would the market be better if that was prohibited?
It’s going to be pretty easy to dunk on obviously harmful monopolies. It might be more interesting to explore more nuanced cases.