5 ms·

> It's definitely anti-competitive in spirit Where do you draw the line with that? What if you were in a store, saw a product, and then asked the clerk 'can I

by gist 9y ago

> It's definitely anti-competitive in spirit Where do you draw the line with that? What if you were in a store, saw a product, and then asked the clerk 'can I use your phone I want to check the price at one of your competitors?'. Is that any different? Even if the phone line doesn't cost anything per call (it's a fixed cost let's say). Competition, honest competition, doesn't require you to make it easy for customers to see if your pricing is fair or high or whatever. Mostly if stores don't enforce this (even with taking of pictures) it's because from a practical standpoint they can't enforce it or get employees to battle customers. Not because they don't have a right to do so.

ethbro 9y ago
If a customer, using their equipment and no store resources, is prevented from researching competitor's pricing - that seems like a fair line.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Is standing in a store's property considered using a store's resources?
  - diggernet 9y ago
    Using that company's WiFi certainly is!
  - ethbro 9y ago
    No. Considering it's open to the public.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
There is no objective line here, it's really about how far a firm goes to actively prevent users from switching. That seems to be the spirit of anti-trust law: The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. So in this case it could be argued that they are "refusing to supply an essential facility." That essential facility being unrestricted access to the internet - but I think its too precedent laden to hold.
- mixedCase 9y ago
  Free internet access is not an essential facility for shopping in a retail store.
mtarnovan 9y ago
Still, there's a difference between actively helping your customers check the competition and actively blocking them. After all, perfect information is a condition of perfect competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)
- bostik 9y ago
  Or, as a friend has put it: "The one thing a capitalist fears more than anything else is a truly free market."

by gist 9y ago

ethbro 9y ago

If a customer, using their equipment and no store resources, is prevented from researching competitor's pricing - that seems like a fair line.

pishpash 9y ago
Is standing in a store's property considered using a store's resources?
- diggernet 9y ago
  Using that company's WiFi certainly is!
- ethbro 9y ago
  No. Considering it's open to the public.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

There is no objective line here, it's really about how far a firm goes to actively prevent users from switching. That seems to be the spirit of anti-trust law: The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. So in this case it could be argued that they are "refusing to supply an essential facility." That essential facility being unrestricted access to the internet - but I think its too precedent laden to hold.

mixedCase 9y ago
Free internet access is not an essential facility for shopping in a retail store.

mtarnovan 9y ago

Still, there's a difference between actively helping your customers check the competition and actively blocking them. After all, perfect information is a condition of perfect competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)

bostik 9y ago
Or, as a friend has put it: "The one thing a capitalist fears more than anything else is a truly free market."