3 ms·

somehow in a case about the credit card industry, which actually extracts monopoly rent on most personal financial transactions its more important for author to

somehow in a case about the credit card industry, which actually extracts monopoly rent on most personal financial transactions its more important for author to talk about about "tech" bogeyman

simplify 9y ago
Personally I thought the connection to tech was a useful way of provoking thought on the ramifications of the potential court ruling.
paulie_a 9y ago
It's weird noting: Google is worth 3 times what Visa is, Facebook is 2x.
rosser 9y ago
What SCotUS decides here establishes precedent for future cases. Some of those cases will involve tech companies.
- jakelarkin 9y ago
  some of those cases will involve healthcare providers or energy distributors, so what? The case potentially affects all transactions where there is processing or market-making intermediary. There's no specificity on how it applies to Google, Amazon or Facebook products even those are named in the headline. It's just a terribly written editorial with vague legal analysis and mentions tech firms for click-bait sensationalism.
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    The article says that distrust of big tech is bipartisan. I imagine that's why they call attention to that industry.
  - rosser 9y ago
    No healthcare provider or energy distributor has as large a share of their respective markets as Amazon or Facebook do theirs. They're in the best position to abuse their market dominance. If this ruling is upheld, their ability to do that is directly affected — specifically, strengthened — significantly. Perhaps irreversibly.
  - fourthark 9y ago
    It talks about Google as serving both users and advertisers. It talks about Amazon serving both buyers and sellers. I think that's specific.
Mediterraneo10 9y ago
The author points out that tech companies filed amicus briefs on behalf of the credit card industry.
- gowld 9y ago
  No, they didn't. The NYT tried to insinuate that while concealing the relevant details. http://www.ccianet.org/2018/01/ccia-files-supreme-court-amicus-brief-in-american-express-case/ http://www.ccianet.org/2018/01/ccia-files-supreme-court-amic... Washington — The Computer & Communications Industry Association has filed an amicus brief on how the Supreme Court should look at multi-sided business models from an antitrust perspective when it hears the upcoming Ohio v. American Express case. While CCIA does not weigh in on the substance of the financial services issues impacting merchant fees, the tech trade association does argue that constraints on all sides of a multi-sided firms should be considered when analyzing if a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of anticompetitive conduct. The American Express case represents the first time that an antitrust dispute involving “multi-sided markets” — where a third party service provider is in the business of uniting buyers with sellers — has come before the Supreme Court of the United States. ... “Two-sided markets” or “multi-sided firms” is a term of art in the theoretical economics literature that refers to business models that have multiple sets of customers, such as many of CCIA’s members. Multi-sided businesses operate under complex economic dynamics as they must consider the effects of their pricing and output decisions on both sets of customers, as well as the interrelationship among the customers on each side of their business. Whether a multi-sided firm has market power or not requires consideration of the actual effects of multi-sidedness. Ignoring these competitive realities would risk penalizing healthy competition to the detriment of consumers.
  - hedora 9y ago
    How do railways (freight, passengers) or telcos not meet the definition of “multi-sided firm”? Those are the first two monopoly cases that came to mind. Can you name any anti-trust suit ever brought against a firm with one set of customers? (And zero suppliers/employees, if you take the argument being made to its logical extreme) I’m not buying the “this time it’s different” argument at all.

somehow in a case about the credit card industry, which actually extracts monopoly rent on most personal financial transactions its more important for author to talk about about "tech" bogeyman

simplify 9y ago

Personally I thought the connection to tech was a useful way of provoking thought on the ramifications of the potential court ruling.

paulie_a 9y ago

It's weird noting: Google is worth 3 times what Visa is, Facebook is 2x.

rosser 9y ago

What SCotUS decides here establishes precedent for future cases. Some of those cases will involve tech companies.

jakelarkin 9y ago
some of those cases will involve healthcare providers or energy distributors, so what? The case potentially affects all transactions where there is processing or market-making intermediary. There's no specificity on how it applies to Google, Amazon or Facebook products even those are named in the headline. It's just a terribly written editorial with vague legal analysis and mentions tech firms for click-bait sensationalism.
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  The article says that distrust of big tech is bipartisan. I imagine that's why they call attention to that industry.
- rosser 9y ago
  No healthcare provider or energy distributor has as large a share of their respective markets as Amazon or Facebook do theirs. They're in the best position to abuse their market dominance. If this ruling is upheld, their ability to do that is directly affected — specifically, strengthened — significantly. Perhaps irreversibly.
- fourthark 9y ago
  It talks about Google as serving both users and advertisers. It talks about Amazon serving both buyers and sellers. I think that's specific.

Mediterraneo10 9y ago

The author points out that tech companies filed amicus briefs on behalf of the credit card industry.

gowld 9y ago
No, they didn't. The NYT tried to insinuate that while concealing the relevant details. http://www.ccianet.org/2018/01/ccia-files-supreme-court-amicus-brief-in-american-express-case/ http://www.ccianet.org/2018/01/ccia-files-supreme-court-amic... Washington — The Computer & Communications Industry Association has filed an amicus brief on how the Supreme Court should look at multi-sided business models from an antitrust perspective when it hears the upcoming Ohio v. American Express case. While CCIA does not weigh in on the substance of the financial services issues impacting merchant fees, the tech trade association does argue that constraints on all sides of a multi-sided firms should be considered when analyzing if a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of anticompetitive conduct. The American Express case represents the first time that an antitrust dispute involving “multi-sided markets” — where a third party service provider is in the business of uniting buyers with sellers — has come before the Supreme Court of the United States. ... “Two-sided markets” or “multi-sided firms” is a term of art in the theoretical economics literature that refers to business models that have multiple sets of customers, such as many of CCIA’s members. Multi-sided businesses operate under complex economic dynamics as they must consider the effects of their pricing and output decisions on both sets of customers, as well as the interrelationship among the customers on each side of their business. Whether a multi-sided firm has market power or not requires consideration of the actual effects of multi-sidedness. Ignoring these competitive realities would risk penalizing healthy competition to the detriment of consumers.
- hedora 9y ago
  How do railways (freight, passengers) or telcos not meet the definition of “multi-sided firm”? Those are the first two monopoly cases that came to mind. Can you name any anti-trust suit ever brought against a firm with one set of customers? (And zero suppliers/employees, if you take the argument being made to its logical extreme) I’m not buying the “this time it’s different” argument at all.