[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: monopoly definition
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:47:12 -0400 Shawn Mamros <mamros@MIT.EDU> writes:
> >[...] If MLB is considered a monopoly then what prevents the same
> >standards from being imposed on corporations that own most if not
> >the major stations in the major markets? [...]
> Key word in that last sentence: most. No single company controls
> all of radio, unless you can prove that Infinity and Clear Channel
> are in collusion (sp?) with one another (and I don't doubt that
> some on this list would want to try and prove that :-). MLB is
> undeniably in control of professional baseball.
> As long as the number of large companies owning radio stations
> equals more than one, monopoly laws do not apply.
There are markets in MLB with more than one team, owned by different
entities so why would they be protected under an anti-trust exemption
since there is not a monopoly in that particular city?
I'm not a big enough baseball fan to know the answer to this question,
but back when baseball was originally protected from the anti-trust laws
didn't most baseball towns have more than one MLB team?
Collusion is hard to prove but IIRC it was proven in MLB.