Yup. It's why judges must recuse themselves when there's the *potential* for appearance of conflict of interest and/or impropriety. Unfortunately similar standards don't apply to our legislators. In fact, they tend to flaunt it.
...the rest got caught by the HTML filter. Trying again...
A monopoly is greater than 98% market share and less than or equal to five suppliers in the market. Or something like that. Point being that in a free market, to be a monopoly by pure dominance requires a tremendous share. Otherwise you're just a really good market leader.
To be a monoply without meeting that criteria, a firm would have to at least a) engage in anticompetitive behavior (ssuch as with vendor ccontracts), b) create artificial barriers to entry (regulations), and c) actively work to exclude rivals (overly broad patents). It's the abuse of market dominance, not the dominance itself, which is detrimental and monopolistic.
In the last round; everyone who bought the book club got an extra bonus - Patry's book was actually a first run mistake replete with typo's. Got confirmation of that from him directly (and also a courtesy PDF w/ corrections). So it was an instant rarity, since his autograph confirmed its source.
A nice "extra surprise" like that would be great in this round. :)
That's what I find funny when cluebies like this exec claim that open source is somehow anti-private enterprise. Companies like IBM, Red Hat, and Canonical all seem to be pretty successful ventures, and yet they're all major contributors to FOSS. So how is supporting them against the free market again?