Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Between 1995 and 2000, Internet start-ups encouraged investors to pour large sums of money into companies with ".com" in their business plan. When the commercialization of the Internet became more acceptable and fast-paced, Internet companies began to form rapidly with minute planning in order to get into what they thought would be easy money.
The significance of the Internet in the creation of these monopolies, in more recent years, has been somewhat diminished due to increased knowledge and awareness of how to use the technology. At the same time, the ever-increasing complexity of digital technologies strengthens monopolies of knowledge, according to the New York Times :
This has led to an extension of theory to address what is called "monopoly-finance capital," the "internationalization of monopoly capital," the globalization of the reserve army of labor, and the growing monopolization of communications, most dramatically the Internet. [9] [10] [11]
This article describes how the Internet was and is currently governed, some inherent controversies, and ongoing debates regarding how and why the Internet should or should not be governed in the future. [1] (Internet governance should not be confused with e-governance, which refers to governmental use of technology in its governing duties.)
Some believe media integrity to be at risk when ownership of the media market is concentrated. Media integrity refers to the ability of a media outlet to serve the public interest and democratic process, making it resilient to institutional corruption within the media system, economy of influence, conflicting dependence and political clientelism.
US prosecutors opened a landmark antitrust trial against Google on Tuesday with sweeping allegations that for years the company intentionally stifled competition challenging its massive search ...
A monopoly is characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce a particular thing, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. [1]
At the initial trial which began in 1998, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, [2] but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit partially overturned that judgment in 2001. [1]