3 ms·
I was under the impression that even this was okay, it was using a monopoly position in one market to take over another market that wasn't kosher.
by darpa_escapee 9y ago
I was under the impression that even this was okay, it was using a monopoly position in one market to take over another market that wasn't kosher.
- jonbarker 9y agoIf I recall correctly in the US court case history they ruled one couldn't both own the means of production (ie movie studios) and the means of distribution of content (ie movie theaters). Not sure if the movie business used market power in one to take over the other, but that would be interesting to know. If you take it as an assumption that the only things that changed with the internet were 1) the volume of content increased and 2) the barrier to entry reduced, then it gets tricky. Example: the Huffington Post proved that content creators would be willing to do so for personal brand exposure instead of pay (kind of like I'm doing now as I am now realizing...). FB has created a content collection and distribution engine "employing" people who are willing to populate it for free in exchange for some non-monetary benefit. This doesn't really get FB out of the antitrust problem IMO.
- icebraining 9y agoIt's more complex than that. The law says they can't "unreasonably restrict competition", and then courts have to decide what that actually means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act