4 ms·

> To be clear, I’m not alleging that the Gang of Five is colluding with each other to fix prices, or to actively suppress innovation; or to do anything illegal.

> To be clear, I’m not alleging that the Gang of Five is colluding with each other to fix prices, or to actively suppress innovation; or to do anything illegal. I am certainly not suggesting they be sued for antitrust violations, like the once-sole dominant platform company, Microsoft, was in the late 1990’s. I found this an odd comment, because we don't have to "allege collusion". It's been documented and settled in court. It was wage fixing, not price fixing, but it's still clear evidence that the "Gang" is willing to work together against the market.

simonh 10y ago
Up to a point, but the wage fixing issue has already been settled and this article is current, not historical. Walt is pointing at what he sees happening now. Can you point out instances of criminal collusion you think are or might be currently happening?
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  This is a reasonable criticism, but it also feels a bit like the circular argument used for the TPP: "You're talking about the old idea, you need to respond to the new one we won't let you see!" I don't have an example of ongoing collusion, but a week before the wage fixing news broke I couldn't have cited that, either. I could probably muster something about coopting web standards organizations or hypocritical stances on net neutrality, but it would be weak. I didn't mean to attack Walt for saying "alleging", and I recognize he's talking about consumer-facing issues anyway, but I did think it was a relevant historical note that this was very recently more than an allegation.
- RestlessMind 10y ago
  These big tech co's have already demonstrated that they are willing to break rules if its suits them (cf. wage fixing). What makes you trust them at this point? What have they done to redeem themselves?
kyleschiller 10y ago
To be clear, the "wage-fixing" was a no cold-call agreement that involved Apple and Google, not the rest of the companies mentioned. [0] I'm all for criticizing giant companies but can we at least get our facts straight and not sound conspiratorial about it? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
- drewrv 10y ago
  Is there a distinction between "a no cold-call agreement" and "wage fixing" that I'm not aware of? This sounds a bit like "I didn't commit assault I only hit him".
  - tynpeddler 10y ago
    >Our (Google's) policy only impacted cold calling, and we continued to recruit from these companies through LinkedIn, job fairs, employee referrals, or when candidates approached Google directly. In fact, we hired hundreds of employees from the companies involved during this time period. Not defending google here, but there is some nuance to the issue. The scummiest part to me is that they made "agreements that, when offering a position to another company's employee, neither company would counteroffer above the initial offer." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  If we didn't get conspiratorial about it, we'd have to admit it's the natural interest and tendency of labor monopsonists to try to suppress wages.

simonh 10y ago

Up to a point, but the wage fixing issue has already been settled and this article is current, not historical. Walt is pointing at what he sees happening now. Can you point out instances of criminal collusion you think are or might be currently happening?

Bartweiss 10y ago
This is a reasonable criticism, but it also feels a bit like the circular argument used for the TPP: "You're talking about the old idea, you need to respond to the new one we won't let you see!" I don't have an example of ongoing collusion, but a week before the wage fixing news broke I couldn't have cited that, either. I could probably muster something about coopting web standards organizations or hypocritical stances on net neutrality, but it would be weak. I didn't mean to attack Walt for saying "alleging", and I recognize he's talking about consumer-facing issues anyway, but I did think it was a relevant historical note that this was very recently more than an allegation.
RestlessMind 10y ago
These big tech co's have already demonstrated that they are willing to break rules if its suits them (cf. wage fixing). What makes you trust them at this point? What have they done to redeem themselves?

kyleschiller 10y ago

To be clear, the "wage-fixing" was a no cold-call agreement that involved Apple and Google, not the rest of the companies mentioned. [0] I'm all for criticizing giant companies but can we at least get our facts straight and not sound conspiratorial about it? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

drewrv 10y ago
Is there a distinction between "a no cold-call agreement" and "wage fixing" that I'm not aware of? This sounds a bit like "I didn't commit assault I only hit him".
- tynpeddler 10y ago
  >Our (Google's) policy only impacted cold calling, and we continued to recruit from these companies through LinkedIn, job fairs, employee referrals, or when candidates approached Google directly. In fact, we hired hundreds of employees from the companies involved during this time period. Not defending google here, but there is some nuance to the issue. The scummiest part to me is that they made "agreements that, when offering a position to another company's employee, neither company would counteroffer above the initial offer." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
If we didn't get conspiratorial about it, we'd have to admit it's the natural interest and tendency of labor monopsonists to try to suppress wages.