4 ms·

I disagree with the very first point. Monopolies are not illegal in the United States. Monopolization is illegal, but the legal definition of monopolization i

by k2enemy 10y ago

I disagree with the very first point. Monopolies are not illegal in the United States. Monopolization is illegal, but the legal definition of monopolization is not "being a monopoly." If it were illegal to be a monopoly, no firm could ever invent a new product category as they would be a monopoly in that market. There's a hundred years of case law supporting the fact the being a monopoly is not illegal. The US v. Grinnell is one of the big ones, and quoted in the DOJ page I linked to. https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-were-monopolies-outlawed-in-the-US https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-were-monopolies-outlawed-... https://www.quora.com/Why-are-oligopolies-legal-if-monopolies-are-not https://www.quora.com/Why-are-oligopolies-legal-if-monopolie... https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... https://www.wired.com/2012/10/antitrust-is-supposed-to-protect-consumers-not-competitors/ https://www.wired.com/2012/10/antitrust-is-supposed-to-prote... http://www.girardgibbs.com/antitrust-monopoly/ http://www.girardgibbs.com/antitrust-monopoly/ As another example, Microsoft was found to be a monopoly and to be monopolizing. The result of the case was not that they had to stop being a monopoly, it was that they had to stop the unfair and monopolizing business practices.

zeteo 10y ago
> Monopolies are not illegal in the United States. Monopolization is illegal Next up: the 18th amendment did not implement Prohibition, since it still allowed alcohol consumption; it merely forbade obtaining it. The links present a unilateral view of the issue, mainly from lawyers defending big companies. Here's the other side from our longest serving Justice, William O. Douglas [1]: "We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace - both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace - because of its control of prices. [...] That power can be utilized with lightning speed. It can be benign or it can be dangerous. The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist. For all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy should be in the hands of elected representatives of the people, not in the hands of an industrial oligarchy. Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men. The fact that they are not vicious men but respectable and social minded is irrelevant. That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/495.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/495.html

by k2enemy 10y ago

zeteo 10y ago

> Monopolies are not illegal in the United States. Monopolization is illegal Next up: the 18th amendment did not implement Prohibition, since it still allowed alcohol consumption; it merely forbade obtaining it. The links present a unilateral view of the issue, mainly from lawyers defending big companies. Here's the other side from our longest serving Justice, William O. Douglas [1]: "We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace - both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace - because of its control of prices. [...] That power can be utilized with lightning speed. It can be benign or it can be dangerous. The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist. For all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy should be in the hands of elected representatives of the people, not in the hands of an industrial oligarchy. Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men. The fact that they are not vicious men but respectable and social minded is irrelevant. That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/495.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/495.html