4 ms·

I don't think banning the monopolists from buying other companies will work nor is it fair. It shouldn't be a thing at all, it should be considered as unfair pu

I don't think banning the monopolists from buying other companies will work nor is it fair. It shouldn't be a thing at all, it should be considered as unfair punishment for natural monopolists. Not to mention, most startups will fail on their own anyway without being bought out. One idea I have (or maybe I misunderstand the laws) is to modernize these patent laws to discourage buying companies simply for their patents. We need to reduce the length of patents, ban software patents, outlaw the patent trolls (patents need to be produced or lose it), and for both natural and non-natural monopolists, make patents globally licensable from them with no exceptions. Apple grows and improves its technologies through buying companies, it would never be able to produce TouchID/FaceID without buying companies that has patents on the said technologies. If Apple has a hold on the market, it must be forced to license the said patents to anyone at a fair price. I'm sure there are cons to this approach but it is not like the remedies shown in the article don't have problems either.

ethbro 8y ago
The intent of an acquisition ban would be to encourage companies to split themselves in order to maintain the ability to acquire technology. The reasoning seems simple enough -- if you obtain a dominant market position through hard work and a superior product, you currently have no disincentive against using the proceeds of that position to expand into new products. That superior companies should be able to obtain monopolies in one category is a debatable good. That they should be able to use their monopolies to expand into new categories seems wholly without merit. If Amazon Basics wants to compete against Diapers.com, or Google Docs with Microsoft Office, or Facebook against Snapchat, then they should do so on the merit of their offerings, not simply by how much of their parents' money they can burn to buy marketshare. Recognizing that the largest corporations have an inherent, unfair advantage in expansion, disincentivizing them seems like a logical way to create a more competitive, diverse, and freer market.
- mikhailt 8y ago
  I’m very curious about this idea, is there any good resource you can recommend on this? How does splitting companies help? I don’t understand the value or the point of this, giving the history of Ma bell and they ended up being multiple larger bells in the long run. Is the split intended to require regulation reviews when someone want to merge or purchase companies later?
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Any split would be self-enforced. The ban on acquisitions would be the impetus to stay under the market cap. The article specifically notes that the Bell split was a bad model, as it just created multiple local monopolies. As a shareholder, I don't particularly lose as now I own stock in Google Search + Google Maps + Android (or whatever combo). Or corporations decide they want to stay big... but can no longer defensively acquire prospective competitors. Which seems to cleanly solve the problem of "No one aspires to be the next Apple / Google / Facebook, they simply want to be bought by them." It would depress valuations (as there wouldn't be a reliable acqu-exit), but that might not be such a bad thing either.
moate 8y ago
The whole idea of breaking monopolies and now allowing a free market is that after a certain point, you don't want these companies improving their product, because their "product" just becomes "a whole market segment that large chunks of the population need". The natural progression of any company is to get larger and buy up more and more of the market in order to improve its product, prevent its competitors from improving their products, and widen its reach. This is the basis of capitalism. The problem is that because these companies have so much money, they're able to buy legislation, solely determine market conditions, and generally stack the odds in their favor (which isn't "wrong" per say, but isn't always in the common good). They may even do this will continuing to produce the best product in their sector. The issue always comes down to the idea of "Who do you trust more to represent the general human population, corporations or government" and there's good arguments for/against both sides being the one who SHOULD be the determinate.
- mikhailt 8y ago
  But you can’t be sure that splitting the companies doesn’t prevent them from doing it again alas Ma Bell > ATT + larger mergers of Bells over times. I just don’t understand how it helps. It would be nice if you can recommend any resources I can look at on this topic.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    Here's one possible case study, Standard Oil: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/226 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/226
- gregknicholson 8y ago
  > because these companies have so much money, they're able to This is the basis of capitalism. The more capital you have, the more power you have. So capital multiplies. > generally stack the odds in their favor (which isn't "wrong" per say, but isn't always in the common good) Once you have enough capital, you have the power to remove alternative options. This isn't a flaw in the capitalist model; this is the capitalist model.

ethbro 8y ago

The intent of an acquisition ban would be to encourage companies to split themselves in order to maintain the ability to acquire technology. The reasoning seems simple enough -- if you obtain a dominant market position through hard work and a superior product, you currently have no disincentive against using the proceeds of that position to expand into new products. That superior companies should be able to obtain monopolies in one category is a debatable good. That they should be able to use their monopolies to expand into new categories seems wholly without merit. If Amazon Basics wants to compete against Diapers.com, or Google Docs with Microsoft Office, or Facebook against Snapchat, then they should do so on the merit of their offerings, not simply by how much of their parents' money they can burn to buy marketshare. Recognizing that the largest corporations have an inherent, unfair advantage in expansion, disincentivizing them seems like a logical way to create a more competitive, diverse, and freer market.

mikhailt 8y ago
I’m very curious about this idea, is there any good resource you can recommend on this? How does splitting companies help? I don’t understand the value or the point of this, giving the history of Ma bell and they ended up being multiple larger bells in the long run. Is the split intended to require regulation reviews when someone want to merge or purchase companies later?
- ethbro 8y ago
  Any split would be self-enforced. The ban on acquisitions would be the impetus to stay under the market cap. The article specifically notes that the Bell split was a bad model, as it just created multiple local monopolies. As a shareholder, I don't particularly lose as now I own stock in Google Search + Google Maps + Android (or whatever combo). Or corporations decide they want to stay big... but can no longer defensively acquire prospective competitors. Which seems to cleanly solve the problem of "No one aspires to be the next Apple / Google / Facebook, they simply want to be bought by them." It would depress valuations (as there wouldn't be a reliable acqu-exit), but that might not be such a bad thing either.

moate 8y ago

The whole idea of breaking monopolies and now allowing a free market is that after a certain point, you don't want these companies improving their product, because their "product" just becomes "a whole market segment that large chunks of the population need". The natural progression of any company is to get larger and buy up more and more of the market in order to improve its product, prevent its competitors from improving their products, and widen its reach. This is the basis of capitalism. The problem is that because these companies have so much money, they're able to buy legislation, solely determine market conditions, and generally stack the odds in their favor (which isn't "wrong" per say, but isn't always in the common good). They may even do this will continuing to produce the best product in their sector. The issue always comes down to the idea of "Who do you trust more to represent the general human population, corporations or government" and there's good arguments for/against both sides being the one who SHOULD be the determinate.

mikhailt 8y ago
But you can’t be sure that splitting the companies doesn’t prevent them from doing it again alas Ma Bell > ATT + larger mergers of Bells over times. I just don’t understand how it helps. It would be nice if you can recommend any resources I can look at on this topic.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Here's one possible case study, Standard Oil: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/226 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/226
gregknicholson 8y ago
> because these companies have so much money, they're able to This is the basis of capitalism. The more capital you have, the more power you have. So capital multiplies. > generally stack the odds in their favor (which isn't "wrong" per say, but isn't always in the common good) Once you have enough capital, you have the power to remove alternative options. This isn't a flaw in the capitalist model; this is the capitalist model.