We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41273)8/14/2012 1:25:15 PM
From: LindyBill1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 46820
and if this could be traced to collusion, then, is it unreasonable that some form of intercession might come into play?

How? Sounds like sour grapes to me. You build your network with what's available. If the equipment available is not as good or as cheap as what you competitors are using, "tough toenails." You should have known that coming in.

You certainly can't expect some manufacturer to build you cheap, lower volume equipment.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41273)8/14/2012 3:27:04 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist  Respond to of 46820
Monopoly (or oligopoly) capitalism is not a free market and does not maximize the wealth of a nation. Nor does it optimize superior technological innovation.

Like a sports referee maximizing fair competition under constantly improving rules, it is a desirable role for government to ensure the level playing field and rules for business battle.

As Alan Greenspan learned from the financial services industry, amoral "self-regulation" is ultimately not sustainable.

Even Adam Smith abhorred monopoly.

Ultimately such matters left to the players end up expensive battles between enterprises, in court, which is a massive economic cost; where deep pockets is the virtual value proposition.