Re: How to force two entities to point to the same lookup value

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:01:17 GMT
Message-ID: <xh1Fg.50726$pu3.588550@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

DA Morgan wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>> Your logic is severely distorted.  You assert monopoly with no basis in
>>> fact or argument.
>>
>> Sorry. Monopolistic franchise is longer to type than monopoly. 
>> However, locking one's company into a specific vendor does grant that 
>> vendor a monopolistic franchise by artificially raising the barrier to 
>> entry for the vendor's competition.

>
> This is has gone off-topic should anyone both to read the subject which
> relates to lookups but it should be noted Bob that your definition of
> a monopoly, above, is not the legal definition.

The legal definition is totally irrelevant to any of the points I have made or to the original poster's stated desires. Your introduction of 'the legal definition' is yet another knee-jerk reaction.

I find your unthinking defensiveness truly fascinating. I really do.

What sort of 'bad thing' do you fear would happen if you had the intellectual honesty to cede the point?

Nor is it the definition
> used by economists or pretty much anyone else.

I disagree. I specified the scope of the monopolistic franchise (even if you ignored the several sentences where I did to focus on the one sentence where I was the least bit sloppy), and it means exactly what an economist or Warren Buffet or Benjamin Graham or Larry Ellison or Bill Gates or anyone with reasonable intelligence and intellectual honesty would give as a definition within that scope.

> How many Oracle licenses have you personally purchased with your own funds?

Interestingly, I have never had to. Oracle and its various drones have generally been more than eager to shove them into my hands on the chance I might someday recommend Oracle to a client. Received on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 12:01:17 CDT