3 ms·
If the FTC determines that the joint venture would form a monopoly, they could in fact block it on antitrust grounds. The FTC blocks mergers all the time. Exp
by ctkrohn 16y ago
If the FTC determines that the joint venture would form a monopoly, they could in fact block it on antitrust grounds. The FTC blocks mergers all the time.
Explicit cooperation in restraint of trade is always illegal, though.
- icey 16y agoAccording to Wikipedia [1], there were over 250,000 angel investors active in 2007. If 10 of those investors were to get together to form a "super-group", I'm not sure it would match up with the definition of a monopoly. I don't know anything about the collusion arguments though. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_investor
- ctkrohn 16y agoI agree. Not saying they're a monopoly. The merger-blocking issue is the only reason I can think of for a joint venture being illegal. The difference is that explicit collusion is ALWAYS illegal. Otherwise innocuous activities that may have an anticompetitive effect (e.g. forming a joint venture) are sometimes legal, depending on what the FTC thinks.
- jon_dahl 16y agoThe real question would be their investment market share, right? There might be 500 companies building operating systems, but a Microsoft/Apple merger would probably be a monopoly concern. That said, while their market share is certainly larger than 10/250,000, it probably doesn't even approach 10%. So you're probably right.
- jessriedel 16y agoTrue, but you need to consider possible sub-markets. They might have much less than 10% of angel funding nationwide, but 60% of tech angel funding in the bay area. Or something like that. It all depends on how the regulators draw boundaries around markets.