John Landgraf Quotes

Common sense tells us that this explosion of media sources should eliminate any concern over a lack of diversity of views in the marketplace and competition.

When regulations restricting competition are relaxed, nobody's market share is protected. If telephone companies can offer video programming, cable revenue will surely drop.

If I were to leave Congress and want to start Farenthold TV, it would be very difficult. The fewer players there are, the fewer the opportunities to build a big enough audience to get on.

While there continue to be critics of the Comcast-NBC merger, it's hard to argue that competition in news and entertainment has diminished as a result, given the rise of Netflix and Amazon and the explosion in entertainment options that followed the merger.

It's not healthy for patents to be used to stop other people from doing business.

If you didn't have patents, no one would bother to spend money on research and development. But with patents, if someone has a good idea and a competitor can't copy it, then that competitor will have to think of their own way of doing it. So then, instead of just one innovator, you have two or three people trying to do something in a new way.

I don't take story input from fans.

If people use Chrome, we make less money on our service and that's fine by us because that is fair competition. I wouldn't put Google on a pedestal for competition, but they aren't telling users not to use OpenDNS.

Competition is good because we need to educate customers, and Ozon.ru itself will not be able to do it.

They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers.

When people slave over those scripts and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for them, they don't usually want you to add farts.

People are going to copy your product if you build great stuff. Just because Yahoo has a search box doesn't make it Google.

I don't think it's good in any business for anyone to have a monopoly. On the other hand, you need to have size to get costs down.

I don't want artists to find themselves in a situation where there are only two buyers. That just doesn't seem like a good outcome.

I've made six films for Disney, and they have a clause in their contracts called the morality clause that I've always refused to sign.

You have to be very careful with the art you create and you put out.

My original intent for investing into Sprint - the main strategy was to buy Sprint and T-Mobile at the same time, so we'd have a critical mass to fight against AT&T and Verizon. The U.S. government didn't accept that. They rejected it. So my fundamental strategy was broken.

I always felt like the wrestling business was better off with two viable mainstream promotions.

I don't like seeing talented storytellers ruled by fear.

There is no reason why T-Mobile can't be successful on its own and the only real reason AT&T would want to own T-Mobile is to increase its exclusivity by owning more spectrum.

The biggest cost of my business is competition - promoters bidding against each other to get a tour.

Who can object to a monopoly when any new company, if it is built around a scientific nucleus, can create a new monopoly of its own by creating a wholly new field?

The concept of free competition enforced by law is a grotesque contradiction in terms.

I'm the guy that's trying to break up that monopoly to introduce free enterprise and competition to the energy sector.

Monopoly is the condition of every successful business.