He's not misquoted. Read the WSJ op-Ed: http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-l.... He's not talking about companies that enjoy monopoly profits because they offer superior products. He's talking about companies that enjoy monopoly profits because they have no competitors. He does posit the "creative monopoly" companies that have no competitors because they're first to a new market. But that only lasts so long as there are barriers to entry in your market.[1] And now we're back to regular old Econ 101 monopolies. The "nefarious monopolies" I mentioned all came into existence through first mover advantage. But they endured because they were protected from competition. And much of their innovative legacy came well into their "static monopoly" phase.

[1] To use Thiel's terminology, it matters how quickly the market moves back into equillibrium, and that is dictated by the same forces that give rise to static monopolies.