3 ms·
It's not about whether big tech companies — or any companies — cause "market failure". It's whether their behavior is anti-competitive. Are they leveraging thei
by rosser 9y ago
It's not about whether big tech companies — or any companies — cause "market failure". It's whether their behavior is anti-competitive. Are they leveraging their market leadership in a way that hinders other players from participating in the market? Not just, are they making a better product, or have more users: are they interfering with other companies efforts to compete?
How that question is answered regarding AmEx will shape how future similar cases, many of which will involve tech, are judged. There's no equation between them; it's just what this decision will mean.
- sqdbps 9y ago[Deleted]
- rosser 9y agoConsumer protection isn't just about prices, and antitrust isn't just about consumer protection. In United States v. Microsoft [0], Microsoft was found to have abused its dominance as the maker of Windows to compete unfairly against Netscape, which was free (as was IE), among others. The "browser wars" was Microsoft blocking entry into a market where the price was already zero. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp._(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
- shkkmo 9y agoClearly businesses that accept AmEx are considered consumers for that purpose. This is not being debated here. What is being debated is if there is a two sided market (two separate groups of consumers), should we add a NEW interpretation that requires harm shown for BOTH groups of consumers rather than just ONE group of consumers. Yes, and this case was showing the price change for businesses that accept AmEx. T