4 ms·
I have never seen "anti-competitive" being used in a positive light. A quick search shows it has mainly been used by prosecutors and plaintiffs to describe thei
by 124816 17y ago
I have never seen "anti-competitive" being used in a positive light. A quick search shows it has mainly been used by prosecutors and plaintiffs to describe their adversary.
You don't need to believe me though, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices (We can /all/ trust wikipedia, right?) "Barriers to entry" is relevant.
- DenisM 17y agoRead the Sherman's Act instead of Wikipedia, it's quite unambiguous about this subject.
- 124816 17y agoThanks for the tip. European law is relevant in this case as well, and I'm not sure it requires a strict monopoly over the market. That said, clearly if iPhones were a small part of the mobile ad platforms, nobody would care if Apple limited the ads that could be shown on them. I don't think that's the case though. The point I was trying to make was: If we switched this around, and Microsoft had the number one smartphone, and they did something like this, regulators (though you're right, probably not American ones) would have them bent over a table.