Monopolies...Part 2

First read the previous post(Monopolies...) from top to bottom and then continue with this...

Baghu said:
No question that a free and open competition is the best stage for R&D. But as I said before, Monopoly is just one stage in the development of a market. A perfect competition and the commoditization of that particular product is the most mature and stable stage of the market. I totally agree that R&D is at its best at this stage. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen when it is a monopoly. Infact it is by R&D that the monopolisitic firms prepare themselves for the years of cutthroat competition that the market is heading towards.With respect to IE's example, it was one of the startegies to keep the consumer attention on MS. Nothing more .. nothing less. No R&D was required IE, that wasn't and was never going to be MS's primary market. IE was just a marketing tool for Microsoft, not something it sells. Also R&D in IE would never ensure higher revenue / YOY numbers either:-) MS did not cease R&D in Office and Windows, the soul and spine of Microsoft.Also R&D is not the goal of a business, it is its soul. Infact R&D is one thing that is common between all stages of evolution in the market. It is at its best/ most eveident in the last steady state.On Gokri's link to the curve ( And why it is nothing more than utter bull shit):1. It assumes a lot of things that do not exist with any monopolistic company. Like the demand price curve is sloping downward. But practically it is not such a simple relation-ship, esp in monopolisitic settings. Because, monolpoly is often early stages of a market for that product. and is characterised by the rapid growth of the market SIZE itself ( irrespective of the price set). But the curve assumes a fixed market size and consumers consuming in different quantities depending on the set price. By market size I assume the total revenue opportunity in market. If this is growing, price*output will not be a constant.2. Marginal Cost curve is the one thats most glaringly false. It says, it increases exponentially w.r.t increase, because, of all things., OPPORTUNITY COSTS ( of not producing lesser output so as to increase profits) :)) I guess the opportunity cost of producing less, when you can produce more and aquire/convert more customers is far higher =))These are just two things that I took as examples.
Thanks
Prasanna S



PSV said:

I love this fight :-). Gokri, Rams whats your reply for Baghu's comments?



Murugu said:
Hi Rams,
Adding more fuel to the debate:

1.) Actually I gave the example of Intel only to signify the factthat R&D is a must. So, I do not mean to say that only technologycompanies need R&D. R&D is not in technology alone. It can beanything, which brings abt a new change. I do not see the differencein Intensities of innovation, and actually there shd not any intensitychanges in innovation. U shd be a paranoid always and expect theworst.

2.) For ur comment:> BTW, I am not sure of what the precise definiton of monoply is...I wud> go by the notion that market share >95% is monopoly. So, by my> notions, intel doesn't hav a monopoly.If u feel that Intel is not a monopoly and if u have a soft corner forAMD, what do u say abt the AMD's latest suit against Intel, sayingthat it is a monoploy? Any comments.

3.) For ur comment:> Intel is investing heavily in R&D as it doesn't want waht happened to> 64 bit computing where AMD had the lion's share.What number do u mean by lion's share here? 64 bit computing softwareis itself not readiy available in the market. Ppl @ intel feel thatAMD 64 bit computing in market is not a useful one becoz there is nostandard operating system (meaning which the corporates willuse)available at present for use. 64-bit processors are not doing anyjustice without their counteropart 64-bit OS's. So, it is just goingto be a burden on the customer. Only with Longhorn (or probablyWindows Vista) 64 bit computing support is available for corporates,and only then it will be good to judge the market share. Not now. Andinfact Intel is waiting for the Longhorn OS release for it can go into64-bit processor production and take it to Market in mass no.s. Only64-bit Linux support is present now, which many corporates do not evenbother to look at.It is not that Intel does not have the technology, but it is waitingfor the right time to market it and make it useful to the customers.

4.) For ur comment:> IT IS COMPETITION THAT IS REDUCING THE PRICE....NOT R&D DIRECTLY. WHO> MADE THESE NEW TECHNIQUES EVOLV---->R&D--->WHO MADE R&D MORE> SIGNIFICANT--->COMPETITION;FEAR OF LOSING MARKET SHARE.>> EVERY BUSINESSMAN IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ONLY IN HIS MONEY. NO ONE IS> DOING PUBLIC SERVICE BY REDUCING THE COST OF THE PRODUCTS. BY REDUCING> THE PRICES THEY CAN GET MORE PRODUCTS SOLD AND HENCE GREATER IS THEIR> ROI. HENCE THEY DO ALL THIS.As I have stated in my prev mail, for me it is competition just addsto the fuel. Competition is not the one that makes R&D moresignificant. It is not just exploring the ways to reduce the cost ofpresent techniques but also research in some unventured domain's,where the competition will not have any impact. Venturing into newdomain's is also R&D.It is correct to say that no one is doing a public service. But, atend of the day u also shd get benefitted and the customer also shd getbenefited. I can increase my market share, only if can satsfy thecustomers. So, I think that customer satisfication is the main motivebehind R&D .Customer satisfication ----> profit ++Without customer satisfaction, there is no meaning in profits.

5.)For ur comment:> DEFINITELY R&D PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE AS U SAY. BUT THE REASON R&D> WAS DONE , IN MY POINT OF VIEW, WAS COMPETITION IN ALL SECTORS(READ AS> HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PERIPHERALS....) AND> THE CUSTOMERS BENEFITTED THE MAXIMUM FROM THE NEUTRAL PLAYING GROUNDS.In R&D, as when u r exploring in unventured domains, u don't firstthink competition. U produce some demonstrable results and only then,u think how u can make profitable for u and also the customers, andhow to out-perform ur competitiors. So, the competition factor comesat a later stages(perhaps the final stages). Hence, I strongly feelthat competition does not pave the way for ur R&D.

6) For ur comment:NO COMMENTS. I HAVE MY SOFT CORNER FOR AMD. TO SAY 'IT WUD HAV OUTBEATEN' , IT MIGHT BE PARTLY TRUE IF ONLY THE REVENUES OF THE NEXT FEWYEARS R CONCERNED. BUT MANAGERS PLAN AHEAD (IN LONGER TERMS). HADN'TINTEL INVESTED IN R&d AND HAPPILY SAT SATISFIED WITH THE TURNOVERSTILL 2008, IN 2010 AMD WUD HAV REPLACED INTEL. AMD IS THE GROWING FIREWHICH HAS SPARKED RECENTLY, INTEL KNOWS IT HAS TO STOP THIS FROMTURNING INTO A FOREST FIRE AND HENCE THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT GOINTO RESEARCH.Even Intel agrees that competition is necessary for u to perform in abetter way.To give u one example, in the early 1980s, IBM choose Intel'sso-called x86 chip architecture and the DOS software operating systembuilt by Microsoft. To avoid overdependence on Intel as its solesource of chips, IBM demanded that Intel finds a second supplier.Intel agreed to that fact, and gave away the "286" chip technology toAMD in 1982. Clearly this piece of account, explains how Intel valuesthe need for a competition.Competition helps u to raise ur bar everytime. AMD has been a goodcompetitior for Intel from the 80's. Had intel looked into AMD'scompetition alone, it wud not have gone into domains where AMD isnowhere near! (I do not want to give company specific info and haveremoved some examples) Atleast for Intel, I can confidently state thatcompetition is not the the driving force, which makes it to investbillions of dollars in R&D. Intel has done a lot of things in such ashort span of time, which we wud have never dreamt off, and it iswaiting for the right time to make it available outside(money makingis not intended here).

7. )For ur comment:NO ONE SAID MONOPILIES DONT INVEST IN R&D. IT CAN ONLY BE INFERREDFROM THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS THAT PRESSURE AND INTENSITY ON R&D IS REDUCEDIN A MONOPOLY.May be for software companies like Microsoft, the pressure andintensity on R&D is reduced and u look at competition like Google,Linux, Mac, etc., , to reinvigorate ur R&D. But for Intel thecompetition pressure is only minor part of the whole pie and it is itssoul or backbone.

- Murugu.

Rams said:

Good arguments.

Well, to recollect my sense back to the topic of discussion...the point of discussion is "In monopolies, R&D pressure is less"I still strongly stand by this as most market behavior reflects thesame.

Always,Counter examples can be given to any statement.Similarly, from Murugu's account, it seems Intel is an exception to the topic of discussion.

More counter examples as per Murugu's point numbers.>

1.) Actually I gave the example of Intel....actually there shd not any intensity> changes in innovation.....It is perfectly idealistic that intensity of innovation shudn't changeat any point in time. Most monopolists aren't that way (Indianrailways, EB,....)>

2.)> If u feel that Intel is not a monopoly and if u have a soft corner for> AMD, what do u say abt the AMD's latest suit against Intel, saying> that it is a monoploy? Any comments.I was not aware of this. You may be correct. Have to get a morequantitative definition of 'monopolist'.>

3. What number do u mean by lion's share here? 64 bit computing software> is itself not readiy available in the market....U shud be a better person to comment as I don't have that muchindustry knowledge wrt processors. My arguments were purely based onwhatever I heard from people and the version I heard says that "AMDwas superior in 64 bit computing ">

4.) As I have stated in my prev mail, for me it is competition just adds> to the fuel. Competition is not the one that makes R&D more> significant. It is not just exploring the ways to reduce the cost of> present techniques but also research in some unventured domain's,> where the competition will not have any impact. Venturing into new> domain's is also R&D.Obviously, in new ventures, there is no competition that is drivingthe R&D but it is the market which the product might create. But thepoint of discussion is not what drives R&D but "Is the intensity inR&D drive lesser in monopolies". I still hold that intensity is indeedless once a monopoly is established.>

4. It is correct to say that no one is doing a public service. But, at> end of the day u also shd get benefitted and the customer also shd get> benefited. I can increase my market share, only if can satsfy the> customers. So, I think that customer satisfication is the main motive> behind R&D .> > Customer satisfication ----> profit ++> Without customer satisfaction, there is no meaning in profits.>I can only say that u r an idealistic businessman. When 99% of the ppluse my products, my focus will be more on how to retain theclientele...I'll give some kewl features....I wudn't be breaking myheads in R&D so much as i wud have been had my market share only been, say,50% (or 75% for that matter).To give those little kewl feeatures i do invest in R&D but not to anextent i wud hav done in a free market.>

5. In R&D, as when u r exploring in unventured domains, u don't first> think competition. U produce some demonstrable results and only then,> u think how u can make profitable for u and also the customers, and> how to out-perform ur competitiors. So, the competition factor comes> at a later stages(perhaps the final stages). Hence, I strongly feel> that competition does not pave the way for ur R&D.Ur points r valid, but inappropriate in the context. As i said, we rnot talking abt the lifecycle of R&D but abt "Intensity of R&D inmonopolies">>

6)> Had intel looked into AMD's competition alone, it wud not have gone into > domains where AMD is> nowhere near! (I do not want to give company specific info and have> removed some examples) Atleast for Intel, I can confidently state that> competition is not the the driving force, which makes it to invest> billions of dollars in R&D. Intel has done a lot of things in such a> short span of time, which we wud have never dreamt off, and it is> waiting for the right time to make it available outside(money making> is not intended here).As far as unventured domain is concerned R&D cannot hav competition asthe smotivator:accepted.But still the last line "money making is not intended here" only makesme think that Intel is turning into a "non-profit oriented company";-)No company will innovate for the betterment of the world unless itgets its' returns.>>

7. >> May be for software companies like Microsoft, the pressure and> intensity on R&D is reduced and u look at competition like Google, Linux, Mac, etc., , to reinvigorate ur R&D. But for Intel the> competition pressure is only minor part of the whole pie and it is its> soul or backbone.>Insider shud know better. I'll keep mum on this ;-)I don't know if i'll continue this discussion any further for the dayas my day's chores r already screwed up ;-)


So, to summarize (MY POINTS) for the day, R&D is non-competition motivated in case of new ventures. But, as far as monopolies are concerned, R&D will be less intense as when compared to their initial entry periods.


Rams said:

One last mail for the day;-)

For baghu's comments, they are valid. I had stated that R&D does happen, but it is on the intensity I was debating on. Baghu doesn't claim that it is as intense as it was in the inception period andhence I don't find anything in discord.Bagu's IE version is true...IE is no profit market for MS
Regarding the curves, I still haven't gone thru the links that gokri sent.... that seems to be a nice alternative to screw up the rest ofmy office chores ;-)

Monopolies...

I am copy-pasting a series of discussions a group of our friends were having. The argument is still underway...

Anand Prabhu wrote:

guys,

a nice article.. i agree with this one.

http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1645

take a look.

Cheers,
Anand



Gokri wrote:

Hi all,

I was interested in MS and monopolies in general. Abt whether it is wrong to love MS, I donno. But monopolies are not good for the customer for two reasons.

1) They dont settle at the lowest price for the customer
2) They do not drive the industry forward, letting the customer pay for inefficiencies.

I got interested and worked some numbers to show why monopoly ends up bad for the customer. I put the marginal cost as zero (neglible, storage medium costs) since there are no production costs once Windows is developed. Hence the only cost is initial.

The same logic works for any monopoly even if the production costs are constant: the company will stop producing beyond a point to keep prices high. Though the competitive price would have been lower. Microsoft could sell more copies of windows if it chose to, but it has kept the prices high for the reason shown in the xl file.

All said and done, monopoly behaviour is exhibited by every first entrant. And I would be very happy to be a monopolist myself :)

But it reduces the pressures on R&D and innovation. We still use the same user interface as did Win95. Also, the monopolist does everything, including taking losses in the short term to bleed a new entrant who obviously cannot stand it for long. Hence the curbs on monopolistic tendencies in the US through Anti trust laws.

And needless to say, the senti part near the end - 'brought computing to ordinary folks like you and me' and all, come on, whom are we kidding ? Its every businessman's dream to end up as a monopolist. I admire Gates' acumen in forging the industry to get that.

Regards,
Gokulakrishnan S



Parthi wrote:
Good one indeed!



Baghu wrote:

The numbers are just too trivial to be correct , Gokri. A lot of things are wrong.1. In a lot of products , esp in software products, the marginal cost is not so much dependent on the cost of production but the cost of selling it. You have completely ignored the cost marketing and the sales force it takes to sell an additional unit, hence all your second column numbers are wrong. Infact the cost of selling one additional unit is known to exponentially increase in certain cases( even when cost of production is on the decreasing trend).2. Also I strongly disagree with your view that monopoly implies less emphasis on R&D. The monopolies infact face a stiffer chanllenge of showing strong YOY numbers. Because they get to grow big soon, the effort it takes to grow even marginally bigger is enormous. 3. Also on your point that monopolies don't settle for the lowest price for the customer - Nobody is doing social service. No market will stay a monopoly for ever ( In fact I always advocate that monopoly is just one stage in the process of evolution of a market), hence it is imperative that you make hay while sunshines. Now, that said, there are sometimes more than enough reason for settling for lower prices, depending on how important this particular customer is for your future ideas. This, also because you have worked so hard to be at a point of sale to a customer, you would not want to give that all away, you want him to buy all the other things you have made! This is called CUSTOMER REUSE ( as opposed to code reuse).Talking about Microsoft, I, for one believe that it has done so far so well, mainly because of its innovative sales and marketing strategies (which includes pricing and bundling) more than anything else. But even this giant is having a hard time with XP adoption levels, raising question or two about prospective Vista adoption levels. My guess is that XP sucked the most marketing dollars, and earned the least ROI, of all windows versions, so far (just guessing though).Also just read somewhere: Linus trovalds once said about Bill Gates, "After meeting him, I came to know that I knew nothing about technology and he knew nothing about business" :)

BAghu.



Murugu wrote:

Good analysis da BAghu.I second ur opinions.




Gokri wrote:

Hi rams,
M. cost is manufacturing cost. M. revenue is marginal revenue, the revenue one gets by selling the last product produced. Benefit to the seller is the total benefit accrued to him, (Total Revenue - Total cost) His gross profits, so to say. I shudnt hav been called it Marginal, its total Benefit. In competition, new entrants will come in as long as this is +ve.
Baghu,
1) The nos I sent were for demonstrating a monopoly business which makes an initial investment of 1000 Rs and sells goods at 1500 etc.. Obviously Not Microsoft ! True the marketing and sales expenses would be there. My example was overly simplified. But with any nos thre, the social inefficiency of monopoly would hold. Read these links which explain:
These links would help:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Monopoly.html - very good article by a famous economist, Stigler.
http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Monopoly/Overview15mi.html
> 2. Also I strongly disagree with your view that monopoly implies less> emphasis on R&D. The monopolies infact face a stiffer chanllenge of showing> strong YOY numbers. Because they get to grow big soon, the effort it takes> to grow even marginally bigger is enormous. Do they have a stiffer challenge to show YOY nos, when they have no competiiton to compare to ? and
If the effort to grow marginally bigger is enormous when u are monopolist, you would shut shop and run if there is cut throat competition ! Though some economists argue that monopoly is beneficial for R&D since nobody reinvents the wheel, it has not been accepted. There are some misconceptions about R&D and microsoft like this one:
http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/111699/view4.htm
But, plz see no R&D is big enough that it hurts society to be reinvented twice. Eg. Boeing and Airbus, The only two commercial aircraft manufacturers. Both are on their toes developing newer aircraft because of the other. New aircraft design techniques are reinvented twice on either side of the Atlantic.. also both have partnered and set up Joint ventures to develop some technologies. This has worked. Intel has innovated to keep ahead of its competition.
And its easy to be content with today's technology. Economists say perfect compeititon is the best driver of R&D and innovation.
> 3. Nobody is doing social service. No market will stay a> monopoly for ever ( In fact I always advocate that monopoly is just one> stage in the process of evolution of a market), hence it is imperative that> you make hay while sunshines.
Totally agree. Am in business, not an NGO. thats why I want to be a monopolist.
> Now, that said, there are sometimes more than> enough reason for settling for lower prices, depending on how important this> particular customer is for your future ideas. This, also because you have> worked so hard to be at a point of sale to a customer, you would not want to> give that all away, you want him to buy all the other things you have made!> This is called CUSTOMER REUSE ( as opposed to code reuse).
These kinda customers you have to agree will have to be a small chunk of your business, small enuff not to hurt your profits. And in any case, the monopolist wouldnt have to sell for less because the essence of being a monopolist is that there is a demand at a price and you are the only guy producing that product.
Read the Stigler article closely... would clear up misconceptions about monopolies. The sheer size and achievements of any monopolist (e.g. Indian Railways) overshadows the inefficiencies to society.
There are no 'evil monopolists', only good businessmen. Would say Gates knew a lot more about the s/w business than Linus Torvalds knew about the kernel.
Regards,
Gokulakrishnan S



Rams(I) wrote:

This is turning out to be an interesting affair. Regarding Baghu's comments>"Also I strongly disagree with your view that monopoly implies less> emphasis on R&D. The monopolies infact face a stiffer chanllenge of showing> strong YOY numbers. Because they get to grow big soon, the effort it takes> to grow even marginally bigger is enormous"I don't think so. The emphasis on R&D will be significantly lesserwhen u r a monopoly than when u r in perfect competition. Best knownexample is IE. There was no innovation in IE when it was factuallyestablished that 99% of the computers in the world use IE as theironly browser. . But Ican confidently state that it was only after Firefox's encroachmentinto the browser market that IE7 team was built and now IE7 has beenrolled out with Vista.R&D will still be there in a monopoly, so as to promote newer featuresand products, but the intensity wouldn't be the same as when you arein perfect competition.Another example I can quote is the shattering down of the monopoly inthe Indian airways by the privatisation adn consequential opening upof the market for the private players. The rest is history. You cansee the dramatically spiralling down air fares. Though this exampledoesn't have much with R&D in particular, it does deal with monopolyand the customer benefit. This ratifies Gokri's stand that customersbenefit from the minimum prices in a perfect competition.




Murugu wrote:


There can be quite some exceptions to this as well. Take the case of Intel R&D. Intel has a share of 84% (AMD -15%) inthe overall processor market making it a monopoly, but it doesn't meanthat it does not invest in R&D. Infact Intel is know to be one ofhighest investors in R&D every year. R&D is the basis for a technology company. You need to invent newthings every now then, to make sure that u grow every year. YoY newtechniques and processes make the cost of the processors coming down,which is ultimately going to help the customer.For eg: When we bought computers in our college days, the old P3ones,used to cost around Rs.50K. Now, P3's are out of market. Allthese changes happened in over 3 years. Now u get very good systemsfor Rs.20K. Is this not a benefit for the customer?? How will this bepossible without R&D?If Intel had thought against R&D, it wud have just had the P3 andpolished it every now and then, and tried to sell it at the same cost.I'm sure even then, it wud have out-beaten AMD. But, Intel didn't. I agree with BAghu comments :>"Also I strongly disagree with your view that monopoly implies less> emphasis on R&D. The monopolies infact face a stiffer chanllenge of showing> strong YOY numbers. Because they get to grow big soon, the effort it takes> to grow even marginally bigger is enormous"Competition will just add fuel to it! Without R&D, every technologywill dig its own grave. U need to differentiate from others, to makeur products selling and retain the customer market share.If u r going to sit still, someone will eat upon ur market share,dethroning u from ur top spot.So, I cannot completely agree with the point that monopolies do notinvest in R&D! R&D is their backbone.
Regards,
Murugu.



Rams(I) wrote:

Murugu,The point is NOT "Monopolies don't invest in R&D".They defnitely do invest as stated in my argument
>"R&D will still be there in a monopoly, so as to promote newer features
>and products, but the intensity wouldn't be the same as when you are
>in perfect competition."

It is the intensity of innovation that is the question. If you are a monopoly, there is no need to bet ur fortunes in R&D. But when u r inperfect competition, u'll be kicked off the field if u dont hav a newinnovative selling point when compared with ur competitors.

BTW, I am not sure of what the precise definiton of monoply is...I wud go by the notion that market share >95% is monopoly. So, by my notions, intel doesn't hav a monopoly.

Intel is investing heavily in R&D as it doesn't want waht happened to64 bit computing where AMD had the lion's share.

Also, u shudn't be seeing monopoly only from technical companiesperpective...Wat gokri wanted to say was from a more generic perspective.More responses inline in CAPS...


> R&D is the basis for a technology company. You need to invent new
> things every now then, to make sure that u grow every year. YoY new
> techniques and processes make the cost of the processors coming down,
> which is ultimately going to help the customer."

IT IS COMPETITION THAT IS REDUCING THE PRICE....NOT R&D DIRECTLY. WHOMADE THESE NEW TECHNIQUES EVOLV---->R&D--->WHO MADE R&D MORESIGNIFICANT--->COMPETITION;FEAR OF LOSING MARKET SHARE.EVERY BUSINESSMAN IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ONLY IN HIS MONEY. NO ONE ISDOING PUBLIC SERVICE BY REDUCING THE COST OF THE PRODUCTS. BY REDUCINGTHE PRICES THEY CAN GET MORE PRODUCTS SOLD AND HENCE GREATER IS THEIR ROI. HENCE THEY DO ALL THIS."

"> For eg: When we bought computers in our college days, the old P3> ones,used to cost around Rs.50K. Now, P3\'s are out of market. All> these changes happened in over 3 years. Now u get very good systems> for Rs.20K. Is this not a benefit for the customer?? How will this be> possible without R&D?"

DEFINITELY R&D PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE AS U SAY. BUT THE REASON R&DWAS DONE , IN MY POINT OF VIEW, WAS COMPETITION IN ALL SECTORS(READ ASHARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PERIPHERALS....) ANDTHE CUSTOMERS BENEFITTED THE MAXIMUM FROM THE NEUTRAL PLAYING GROUNDS.


"> If Intel had thought against R&D, it wud have just had the P3 and> polished it every now and then, and tried to sell it at the same cost.> I\'m sure even then, it wud have out-beaten AMD. But, Intel didnt

"NO COMMENTS. I HAVE MY SOFT CORNER FOR AMD. TO SAY \'IT WUD HAV OUTBEATEN\' , IT MIGHT BE PARTLY TRUE IF ONLY THE REVENUES OF THE NEXT FEWYEARS R CONCERNED. BUT MANAGERS PLAN AHEAD (IN LONGER TERMS). HADN\'TINTEL INVESTED IN R&d AND HAPPILY SAT SATISFIED WITH THE TURNOVERSTILL 2008, IN 2010 AMD WUD HAV REPLACED INTEL. AMD IS THE GROWING FIREWHICH HAS SPARKED RECENTLY, INTEL KNOWS IT HAS TO STOP THIS FROMTURNING INTO A FOREST FIRE AND HENCE THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT GO INTO RESEARCH."

"> If u r going to sit still, someone will eat upon ur market share,> dethroning u from ur top spot."

BY "SOMEONE" U R ACTUALLY MEANING \'COMPETITION\' ;-)"



So, I cannot completely agree with the point that monopolies do not> invest in R&D! R&D is their backbone.",1]

NO ONE SAID MONOPILIES DONT INVEST IN R&D. IT CAN ONLY BE INFERREDFROM THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS THAT PRESSURE AND INTENSITY ON R&D IS REDUCEDIN A MONOPOLY.

LET\'S FIGHT MORE "
RAMS.