3 ms·

Well, it does matter, because under the U.S. antitrust law it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse your monopoly position. See United State

Well, it does matter, because under the U.S. antitrust law it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse your monopoly position. See United States v. Aluminum Corp. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 430 (1945) Learned Hand J, the "successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins." European antitrust law is more strict and you can run into problems just for having a monopoly position even if you do not abuse it or obtain it unfairly.

yazan94 9y ago
I think this is a really interesting point. In a capitalist/free-market situation, no one cares if you start a business and fail. Competition is seen as a good thing. But how can you blame a company for winning in its domain against its competitors? Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. I don't think its practical to argue that Google doesn't have a monopoly on internet search[1]. When your product name becomes a replacement term for what your product does/is, that just shows how widely used your product is (another example: Q-Tips vs cotton swabs). But how do you prove or argue that Google hasn't abused its position? [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as... (though I don't know how credible this source is)
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. IANAL, but there is a legally precise meaning. (Of course, lawyers will still argue over whether a particular behavior meets the definition.) But it's basically, you have a monopoly in X, and you try to use that monopoly to gain you market share in Y. For example, let's say Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. That's OK, nothing wrong with it, because Microsoft came by that monopoly more or less honestly. But let's say that Microsoft uses that monopoly to try to give it a leg up in office apps (maybe by its own office app people learning about OS changes well before release of the new OS, but competitors not learning about them in time, so that there's a period of time when Microsoft has the only office apps that work with the new OS). That's not OK. Or let's say that Google has a monopoly on search. That's OK, so far. But let's say that Google manipulates the search results to promote Android (say, by making Android phones come up at the top of the list whenever someone searches for a phone). That's monopoly abuse. Now, what I'm hearing people complain about is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its monopoly in search. As I said, IANAL, but I'm not sure that counts. That's taking something Google doesn't have a monopoly on (browsers) and using it to try to maintain Google's monopoly in search. That's not the same as monopoly abuse. (It's still sleazy.)
  - bnolsen 9y ago
    Microsoft dealing under the table with OEM manufacturers, forcing none to reveal any details of the deals is absolutely a prime example of abuse of their monopoly position in the OS world. A shame they never convicted of these deals.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Especially the part where they lose their preferential price for Windows if they sell any systems with Linux installed? Yeah. (I don't think those terms are any longer in force, but there was a time...)
  - yazan94 9y ago
    You bring up good points, and I didn't know that the term abuse had a legally precise meaning. I do want to disagree here though: > Now, what I'm hearing people complain about is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its monopoly in search. I think this isn't any different than IE or Edge promoting MSN or Bing. I wouldn't say its sleazy, just that they (Microsoft, Google, whoever) is trying to tie their products together to make an ecosystem. Like how iPhones come shipped with Safari (another Apple product). But then again, IANAL either.
Nomentatus 9y ago
So, there's no bundling going on with Android? Google never bought a company that held another patent? (Patent misuse includes using one patent to buy another, or extend your business.) "Abuse" isn't something bizarre, it includes many otherwise normal business practices that allow a monopoly to become a cancer spreading out everywhere. The really strange court decisions that held that efficiency (for Google) trumped bundling happened in N.A.

yazan94 9y ago

I think this is a really interesting point. In a capitalist/free-market situation, no one cares if you start a business and fail. Competition is seen as a good thing. But how can you blame a company for winning in its domain against its competitors? Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. I don't think its practical to argue that Google doesn't have a monopoly on internet search[1]. When your product name becomes a replacement term for what your product does/is, that just shows how widely used your product is (another example: Q-Tips vs cotton swabs). But how do you prove or argue that Google hasn't abused its position? [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as... (though I don't know how credible this source is)

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. IANAL, but there is a legally precise meaning. (Of course, lawyers will still argue over whether a particular behavior meets the definition.) But it's basically, you have a monopoly in X, and you try to use that monopoly to gain you market share in Y. For example, let's say Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. That's OK, nothing wrong with it, because Microsoft came by that monopoly more or less honestly. But let's say that Microsoft uses that monopoly to try to give it a leg up in office apps (maybe by its own office app people learning about OS changes well before release of the new OS, but competitors not learning about them in time, so that there's a period of time when Microsoft has the only office apps that work with the new OS). That's not OK. Or let's say that Google has a monopoly on search. That's OK, so far. But let's say that Google manipulates the search results to promote Android (say, by making Android phones come up at the top of the list whenever someone searches for a phone). That's monopoly abuse. Now, what I'm hearing people complain about is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its monopoly in search. As I said, IANAL, but I'm not sure that counts. That's taking something Google doesn't have a monopoly on (browsers) and using it to try to maintain Google's monopoly in search. That's not the same as monopoly abuse. (It's still sleazy.)
- bnolsen 9y ago
  Microsoft dealing under the table with OEM manufacturers, forcing none to reveal any details of the deals is absolutely a prime example of abuse of their monopoly position in the OS world. A shame they never convicted of these deals.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Especially the part where they lose their preferential price for Windows if they sell any systems with Linux installed? Yeah. (I don't think those terms are any longer in force, but there was a time...)
- yazan94 9y ago
  You bring up good points, and I didn't know that the term abuse had a legally precise meaning. I do want to disagree here though: > Now, what I'm hearing people complain about is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its monopoly in search. I think this isn't any different than IE or Edge promoting MSN or Bing. I wouldn't say its sleazy, just that they (Microsoft, Google, whoever) is trying to tie their products together to make an ecosystem. Like how iPhones come shipped with Safari (another Apple product). But then again, IANAL either.

Nomentatus 9y ago

So, there's no bundling going on with Android? Google never bought a company that held another patent? (Patent misuse includes using one patent to buy another, or extend your business.) "Abuse" isn't something bizarre, it includes many otherwise normal business practices that allow a monopoly to become a cancer spreading out everywhere. The really strange court decisions that held that efficiency (for Google) trumped bundling happened in N.A.