I'm reiterating my Buy rating for Hasbro Inc. (NYSE: HAS), first recommended on June 22, 2009 at a price of $24.30, but there are qualifiers and conditions.

First, Hasbro is now a high-risk stock, a downgrade from the moderate-risk category in June, largely on the continuance of the 'frugal consumer' trend in the United States.

When Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) was seen as a monopolist in the 1990s, governments all over the world hit it with antitrust lawsuits. The world's largest software company saw its kingdom under attack even as it continued selling operating system software (and later, internet browsers) to all the world's PC manufacturers.

Microsoft is still the king when it comes to software these days, but an old nemesis, Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is shaping up to become the next monopolist in the PC technology arena.

Apple's iPod/iTunes ecosystem could be called a monopoly. It commands the lion's share of the digital music player and downloading market and customers just can't stop buying the hardware and software. Does that make Apple a monopolist? After all, by some measures, Apple's market share is now larger than Wall Street darling Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG). Does Apple's 11% share of the PC market make it a monopolist? Does this smaller market share even suggest that? On the surface, no. But Apple's influence extends way beyond that hardware market share figure. Its control of entire market segments would suggest Apple may resemble what Microsoft looked like 10 years ago.

Mattel (NYSE: MAT), a toy company that competes with Hasbro (NYSE: HAS) and JAKKS Pacific (NASDAQ: JAKK), got some good news earlier this week. Its stock was upgraded by analyst Gerrick Johnson of BMO Capital Markets, according to the AP, although it wasn't necessarily an overwhelming vote of confidence. The analyst is switching the rating from "underperform" to "market perform," and if you check out the AP piece, you'll see that he basically is saying that while he doesn't see a big reason to sell the stock, he doesn't see a big reason to buy it either. This was a call based on simple valuation.

I was glad when I read this clarification because, when I first spied this headline, I was a bit flummoxed. I honestly didn't expect Mattel to receive some huge upgrade at this point, even though I agree that the stock is certainly cheap. My main reason for this hinges on the best-of-breed character of Mattel's colleague Hasbro. I just wrote about this company and the strength of its stock at the beginning of the week, and if I were to buy any toy business right now, it probably would be the maker of Monopoly and Mr. Potato Head. Hasbro's got the brand strength as well as the stock strength, it seems, and even though Mattel packs a dividend-yield punch at over 4%, this market might be too tough to go with companies that are nowhere near a bullish trend.

Long-term, the maker of Barbie will rebound. Short-term, it may languish. So you'll have to consider your timeframe when taking a look at Mattel and Hasbro. Mattel does have a nice yield, but Hasbro and its product portfolio could be better positioned come the holiday season. It's going to be an interesting battle between these two rivals once the weather turns cold...

Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned here; positions can change at any time.

CNNMoney over the weekend reviewed the first half of the year for the markets. Among its lists of winners and losers, one stock got my attention.

Believe it or not, Hasbro (NYSE: HAS), a competitor of Mattel (NYSE: MAT) and JAKKS Pacific (NASDAQ: JAKK), was up quite nicely through the end of June. How nice? The stock increased in value by almost 40%. That's impressive, but is it persuasive? What I mean is, should one believe that the company's first-half strength is an undeniable indication that the trend will continue for the rest of the year?

I have been bullish on Hasbro and I think it's a great company that should benefit from the upcoming holiday season, but should doesn't necessarily imply would. We are in what I would call an all-bets-are-off market. The bears, and their claws, are slashing their way through the hallowed halls of Wall Street, and if the negative-wealth effect really gets going, thus further damaging consumer confidence, then one would have to wonder how Hasbro will fare in the second half of the year.

Without a doubt, though, put Hasbro on your watch list and perform some due diligence on the company. It's got some great brands in its portfolio like Monopoly and Transformers, and keep in mind that its Star Wars line is due to receive a nice catalytic jolt from the upcoming Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated project. Hasbro's stock dropped almost 7% in the last month. This followed a lot of up months. If the stock experiences a further pullback, and the dividend yield rises, it may become attractive.

Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned; positions can change at any time.

In the last few days, bookselling giant Amazon.com Inc (NASDAQ: AMZN) has made a few more enemies in the publishing world by forcing the little-known group of print-on-demand (POD) publishers to either submit to using its POD subsidiary, Booksurge, or risk being prohibited from selling on its industry-leading website. No matter the cost and complications of breaking off relationships with other vendors, reformatting books and a host of other problems, Amazon laid down the law, saying convert -- and do it quickly -- or face the consequences.

What's more disconcerting is that an official press release was made public only after smaller publishers like Angela Hoy of Booklocker.com started writing publicly about blackmail-type phone calls from Booksurge representatives. Fearful of losing their businesses literally overnight, many POD publishers such as iUniverse and Lulu have capitulated while strong willed publisher PublishAmerica refused to give in -- and was quickly made an example of when Amazon disabled the buy buttons on their book titles!

As an author selling my own critically-acclaimed POD book An American Hedge Fund on Amazon, outrage has compelled me to write about how unethical and more importantly, monopolistic this all is.

This article over at PC World churned up some food for thought over the weekend for me. The author makes many decent points about how computer industry stalwarts Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) and Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) have pretty much changed places in terms of being monopolists in their chosen industries. Now, the term "monopolist" may be the only beef I have with the argument. There have always been loads of choices for consumers in the PC and music player industry. Loads.

But the legal trouble Microsoft ran into globally about a decade ago related to its "monopolistic" practice of bundling a web browser (Internet Explorer) into its Windows operating system is not happening to Apple when it "forces" customers to use its iTunes software to make that new iPod work. It's true that alternatives existed for Internet Explorer a decade ago (for informed consumers, anyway), and the same exists for iPods, new and old. You don't "need" iTunes to make it work, but the workarounds are far beyond the patience and technical level of most iPod customers. Therefore, can anyone argue that either company has a monopoly?

It's interesting to see the author point out that Apple is doing things with its digital audio player ecosystem (iPod/iTunes) that would have landed Ole' Softie in court years ago -- something I agree with. Apple makes products that are easy to use and feed the customer need for "just make it work" simplicity, and which are elegantly-designed to boot. Hence, these products sell incredibly well. What's monopolistic about that?

Conversely, Microsoft was not the only PC operating system years ago, although it was hard to buy a new PC without having a version of Windows already installed on it (forcing you to indirectly buy the software). As I said, there were always workarounds, but most customers do not want that -- they just want these products to work, and work well. Has Apple displaced Microsoft as the new monopolist of the high-tech industry? Or, should we even use the term "monopolist" at all?

The Justice Department came to an agreement with Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) in 2002 to regulate what the government saw as non-competitive actions by the big software company. According to Reuters: "Microsoft was found to have unlawfully used its monopoly in personal computer operating systems to discourage computer manufacturers from loading non-Microsoft software on their machines."

Now, the feds are saying Microsoft is doing just fine playing with others and the issue of competition has receded. Not so, say several state attorneys general. They don't believe that Gates & Co. have done much to mend their evil ways.

It is hard to say how the states measure this. Does Linux have a better footprint in the server market? Yes. Is the PC market more open to operating systems outside Windows? No. But until Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) makes its OS broadly available there are not any other alternatives.

Microsoft is certainly using the OS to help it in other areas, like keeping its browser in first place. But areas like web video are now dominated by Adobe (NASDAQ: ADBE)'s Flash platform. That was not true five years ago. PC software security is dominated by Symantec (NASDAQ: SYMC).

If there hadn't been a federal case against Microsoft, the landscape might remain the same as it was throughout the 1990s. But, with competition from Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and other large software companies, it is hard to say that conditions have not changed.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

This week games-maker Electronic Arts (NASDAQ:ERTS) announced a deal with Hasbro (NYSE:HAS) to create electronic versions of the toymaker's brands, including Scrabble and Monopoly. The deal runs through 2013, and covers all Hasbro properties, which include such popular names as the Bratz dolls, the Fantastic Four, Gastrointestinal Joe, The Simpsons, and Twister.

While EA hasn't released information about their plans to make use of these properties, the possibilities are endless –

• Monopoly Extreme -- Why should players be allowed to stroll uninhibited down Boardwalk and Atlantic Avenue, when the game could be much more interesting in a Grand-theft- Auto-type world? Imagine shooting your way out of Marvin Gardens, highjacking a Reading Railroad train, and trolling Baltic Ave. for a hooker.
• Chutes and Ladders -- In the video world, falling into a chute would cost the player much more than a few squares – perhaps even a visit the Hell! Ladders, on the other hand, could lead to greater rewards, such as a front row seat at a Barry Manilow show in Las Vegas. Or do I have those backwards?
• Bratz – the Hilton version. Dress up your Bratz from an endless variety of skanky outfits (underwear tonight- yes, or no?), take her partying in the hottest Hollywood clubs, indulge her in the very best drink and toot, and check her in to the most exclusive rehab clinics. Accumulate points every time she manages to smack a paparazzi with her purse.
• Scrbl – txt vrsn. Txtrs cmpt 2 c who cn use t fwst ltrs 2 spl wrds.
• Easy-Bake Iron Chef – No more light bulbs and tasteless cakes. In the virtual world, mini-chefs can compete with gamers around the world to create monster desserts, exotic entrees or even cook up batches of meth.

Now, that's entertainment.

It appears the monopolistic era of the cable company is coming to an end. As the Baby Bells complete the build out of their networks to carry voice, video and data, they are also going to the FCC and saying there is an alternative to the cable companies.

Kevin Martin, the FCC chairman, is defending a proposal to limit the number of pay television subscribers a cable company can reach at 30 percent, saying telephone companies that deploy video would also be capped at that level, according to Reuters.

"We are trying to create a regulatory environment that promotes competition in a lot of these services. What we have seen is that cable prices have increased by about 100 percent since 1996," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters after testifying at a House telecommunications and Internet subcommittee hearing.

The entire cable industry has been built on being a monopoly. However, this era is now coming to an end. If the Baby Bells cannot compete head on with the cable companies, then regulators will help.

It is important to start listerning to what the cable CEOs say during conference calls about business. Comcast's stock got hit after its recent call due to forecasting higher capex. This surprised the investment community. Higher capex might be a sign that network upkeep is costing more than expected, which possibly means a lower return on investment.

I'm an avid follower of all the news on Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX). So when I saw the article in today's USA Today about Penny Stafford's lawsuit against Starbucks claiming that the company is engaging in anti-competitive practices, I yawned. But it wasn't a happy yawn.

I've heard of Penny Stafford and her lawsuit before. And I'm sure she has validity to her complaints -- while the facts of the case are still she said/they said, the concept that Starbucks pays over-market rates for prime real estate, and asks for exclusives in some buildings, is pretty much agreed-upon.

But her claim that Starbucks drives other stores out of business due to market saturation? It's not happening in my neighborhood, even though, in a one-mile radius from my house in the past four years, the market has increased from one chain coffee store (a Coffee People, owned by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (NASDAQ:DDRX) and recently bought by Starbucks) to two Starbucks and six independent coffee shops. The coffee shops succeed in direct relation to the quality of their products and whether or not the owners manage to create a welcoming, comfortable atmosphere -- the success has nothing to do with proximity to Starbucks or quality of the real estate. Although a neighborhood of 8,000 or so people has been veritably flooded with coffee, all but one of the stores are succeeding (and the failure was clear to me from the moment I peered through the window to see the cafeteria-quality furniture the owner had selected).

And I don't think my neighborhood is unusual, or even one of a handful of anecdotal successes. Whatever you think of Starbucks, the company is just good for independent coffee shops.

What are the odds you might find the four railroads in McDonald's Monopoly sweepstakes, therefore winning $5 million? By the numbers, it's roughly one in 41 billion. Umm-hmm. But it's better described by Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times as "you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning while on your way home from purchasing a winning Lotto ticket with your wife, Jessica Alba, the first lady of the United States."

The Wall Street Journal's Carl Bialik has a funny analysis of the odds, deciding that you're more likely to win a much larger prize in the multi-state Powerball lottery (and this would be the first time I've ever seen the lottery singled out as the smart investment choice -- but check out this analysis of the true value of lotto tickets before pulling money out of your mutual funds).

Of course, it's not as if McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) would have a financial impact from paying out the $5 million; after all, sweepstakes like this are insured. Those insurers, habitual worry-warts that they are, say the odds are actually not quite so bad: after all, if you were to find the rarest game piece (this year, the general agreement is that it's Short Line Railroad), you'd go to any length to get the others ... even, say, buy them on eBay. It's against eBay policy but what's a little "policy" when $5 million is on the line?

Were I the SVP of marketing of a corporation like McDonald's, though, I might forget the insurance and go to any length to make sure the $5 million was awarded. McDonald's doesn't break out marketing expense, but total SG&A for the past year is about $2 billion -- $5 million would be a small part of a marketing strategy and that goodwill of having a winner seems worth it. And besides: who wants to bet a million-dollar winner would keep on eating McDonald's french fries? I know I would.

A small retailer based in the affluent city of Bellevue, across Lake Washington from Seattle, has sued Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX), alleging that the Seattle coffee giant's ambition which the suit characterizes as "insatiable and unchecked" results in an effective monopoly of the industry.

Often, when I spy a headline somewhere about another lawsuit against Starbucks, it's generally along the lines of a customer with a scorched lip -- or defective cup lid, as in one which a judge just threw out. But competitors sues Starbucks, as do labor, consumer, and other groups.

The lawsuit du jour is initiated by Penny Stafford, owner of Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange. Stafford claims says she "was locked out of the best office space in Bellevue and Seattle by Starbucks' exclusive leasing agreements with landlords" according to a Seattle Times story. Such agreements for coveted food and beverage service space in high-rise office buildings are not uncommon. But Stafford's claims that 78% of Bellevue "Class A" office sites are effectively locked up for Starbucks.

Stafford did manage to rent space inside one deli to sell espresso, and found herself competing with free samples given out to customers by employees of the nearest Starbucks, who visited the deli as many a four times a day with samples, she claims. Stafford's deli business went under. She maintains her original location near that same site.

Stafford and her legal team aren't looking to go it alone. The lawsuit is seeking status as a class-action.

Today I posted a story focused on business strategy GOOGLE, APPLE use U.S. Marine's Constant Mission Improvement! and giving credit to Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) for having a clear one, similar to what I perceived the U.S. Marines Corps would do. I mentioned many other companies too. First comments back came from eBay sellers. Seems no matter what the story, eBay sellers will relate it back to eBay and won't let go. I have noticed this with almost all of our posts. Should we start an eBay forum at AOL nicknamed 'Pit Bulls of the Web'?

I have written numerous articles about eBay from different perspectives and I have been supportive of the seller's point of view, but a question still remains for 'sellers'. If eBay has lost its magic, or is just plain lost, why not just move on and find another avenue to sell your wares? If you think it's the only game in town (monopoly), then have you petitioned the FTC, SEC, Justice Dept., not individually but collectively?