Actually there is no confusion, keep in mind that words or terms have multiple definitions. I suppose my point was not that Checker did it solely because it was considered a monopoly but if they did it would have been. Yes, the main goal of selling to all markets is to make money, thats why any business is in operation.
“I suppose my point was not that Checker did it solely because it was considered a monopoly but if they did it would have been.”
They did it, but “if they did it would have been”? I suppose you meant something by that sentence, but failed in the execution of the expression of what you meant.
Hence my use of the phrase “strictly to increase revenue” to avoid confusion. It has never been illegal in the U.S. not to sell a product to the public. F-16s, iron lungs, certain prescription drugs, some encryption systems, professional athletic contracts, some police equipment, the list is endless. You wrong, me right, let’s part as friends.
ZombieWoof …I am glad you are not the shallow type who needs to be right all the time.
You wrong, me right, let’s part as friends…Let me explain that everybody on this site, for the most part, is respectful and courteous to one another. It’s ok to disagree but when do not you need to keep your condescending comments to yourself. It shows a certain lack of character and social skills. Please do not start a pi**ing contest.
As I remember the lawsuit you discussed in an earlier post happened in New York. The company that made the Checker cabs also owned the cab fleet that practically dominated the city. The other manufacturers went after Checker and, as I remember, part of the agreement was that Checker had to purchase some cabs from competing companies–Plymouth, Ford, and Chevrolet. This was about the same time that Checker stepped up selling its cars to the public as well.