Word with the definition of "unethical advantage"?

When one group benefits at the intentional loss of another?

[JAB Creations]

I am trying to find a word with the definition of "unethical advantage" where one group benefits at the intentional loss of another.

- John

[Syzygy]

Wins?
Cheats?
Bends the rules?
Fixes?
Unfairly achieves victory?
Ha-ha-We're-better-than-you?
Jerry-manders?
Disadvantageously?
Dang! They're better than us!

;-)

Any schadenfreude in this?

[JAB Creations]

If one group of people impose rules or take actions to "create a balanced playing field" by trying to negate the natural advantages of another group.

The best analogy I can come up with that is Microsoft's monopoly versus Linux in regards to that company's anti-competitive behavior.

- John

[treeline]

abusive

monopolist

cheats

unscrupulous

[Marcia]

Agressive positioning?

[willybfriendly]

Inequity - An act that is not just: disservice, injustice, raw deal, wrong. Law injury. See law, right/wrong.

Inequitable - Not equitable; unfair.

Unscrupulous - Lacking principles or moral scruples; unscrupulous: unprincipled behavior.

[JAB Creations]

Thanks for the suggestions though unless a word already exists I'm thinking one is going to have to be coined. English and other European languages ultimately stem from Latin correct? I spent some time unsuccessfully this evening looking up words on some English to Latin websites...

Three words that I feel are necessary to construct such a word with such a specific definition would be...
benefit
intent
loss

So if we could find the Latin words these words originate from we could construct a word that literally means, "To intentionally benefit at the loss of another."

- John

[King_Fisher]

Maybe some old time gambling terms;

Stacking the deck!

Trimming the cards!

Palming a card!

As W.C. Fields said in an old time movie when asked" Is this a game of chance?"

he replied "no, not the way I play it!"...KF

[lammert]

The word is "business"

As you know, in business everything is allowed ;)

[Marcia]

It could depend on the methods being used. Anyone who tries to increase their market share is intentionally trying to decrease the market share of their competitors. That's how a free market economy works.

But using illegal, unscrupulous or malicious means to deliberately cause damage or loss to competitors (or other parties, depending on the situation) is a different story.

[ronin]

I am trying to find a word with the definition of "unethical advantage" where one group benefits at the intentional loss of another.

to exploit ... ?

English and other European languages ultimately stem from Latin correct?

No, from Proto-Indo-European. Italic languages (inc. Latin) form one branch. Greek forms another. Teutonic languages, Slavic, Baltic, Iranian and Indic languages form still others.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IndoEuropeanTreeA.svg [en.wikipedia.org]

Anyone who tries to increase their market share is intentionally trying to decrease the market share of their competitors.

Presumably not if they're applying Blue Ocean Strategy [en.wikipedia.org] ?

[JAB Creations]

I should clarify that the topic that is non-technical (as I'm trying to make technical analogies) is that one group is trying to attempt to make another group willingly self-destruct.

So for example let's say in the tech world Microsoft would want Linux to forever avoid RPM installers since normal people have absolutely no desire to mess around with the Linux console. If Microsoft could convince Linux developers that everyone should use the console then it would make Linux self-destructive in being a viable competitor to Windows. I think that is a fair example.

- John

[treeline]

suckering

[Automan Empire]

Formal: Exploitative

Less formal: Shark.

[Murdoch]

Shenanigans

[LifeinAsia]

Microsoft

I wonder if anyone will ever start using it as a verb. :)

[edited by: LifeinAsia at 5:29 pm (utc) on April 15, 2008]

[D_Blackwell]

I didn't correctly understand the question at first. Nevertheless, doesn't getting a benefit often require the eventual 'intentional' loss of another? And, 'unethical' advantage is wide open for definition.

Following up on lammert and Marcia's comments:

Business. Getting more may mean expanding the market, but most often it means beating somebody else to it - or taking it away from them. Getting them to ultimately 'willing self destruct' (QUIT) is even better, and meets the 'intentional' loss criteria. Lot's of times the best guy loses not because he couldn't have won, but because the other guy threw harder and faster punches for just long enough to do the job.

Illegal is one thing (even that can depend on who has the clout and/or deep pockets), but 'unscrupulous' and 'malicious' are also wide open for interpretation. I've been screwed enough times to have learned this very well:))

From the rephrased question I like the 'suckering' suggestion.

Perhaps 'grifting'. Really done well, the mark never even knows they've been had.

(Love the schadenfreude reference.)