3 ms·

from: https://stratechery.com/2017/ends-means-and-antitrust/ https://stratechery.com/2017/ends-means-and-antitrust/ "What is the Standard for Determining Illeg

from: https://stratechery.com/2017/ends-means-and-antitrust/ https://stratechery.com/2017/ends-means-and-antitrust/ "What is the Standard for Determining Illegal Behavior? "The United States and European Union have, at least since the Reagan Administration, differed on this point: the U.S. is primarily concerned with consumer welfare, and the primary proxy is price. In other words, as long as prices do not increase — or even better, decrease — there is, by definition, no illegal behavior. "The European Commission, on the other hand, is explicitly focused on competition: monopolistic behavior is presumed to be illegal if it restricts competitors which, in the theoretical long run, hurts consumers by restricting innovation."

ryanobjc 8y ago
The only problem with allowing competitors to constrain their business rivals is, well, exactly that. They are unable to compete in the marketplace, thus they rely on regulation. I always had a hard time with that notion. It feels too ripe for abuse to me.
- akoncius 8y ago
  It’s not as simple as you are implying. Multiple times Intel made deals with PC vendors just to deny AMD access to computers. It is anticompetitive and in the ling run it damages consumers by limiting competition and innovation. Good thing that AMD wasn’t killed during those moves and now we see rise of AMD. I would not be surprised that AMD was able to catch up just because of same regulations - Intel was punished for anticompetitive actions and now playing field is more or less level. Google is dumping prices for all products and by that it kills competition unfairly - google maps as a standalone product would not survive because it does not generate ad revenues and it’s free to use. Gmail was also unsustainable for really long time because it was free and without ads. So it’s not as simple as you are saying.

ryanobjc 8y ago

The only problem with allowing competitors to constrain their business rivals is, well, exactly that. They are unable to compete in the marketplace, thus they rely on regulation. I always had a hard time with that notion. It feels too ripe for abuse to me.

akoncius 8y ago
It’s not as simple as you are implying. Multiple times Intel made deals with PC vendors just to deny AMD access to computers. It is anticompetitive and in the ling run it damages consumers by limiting competition and innovation. Good thing that AMD wasn’t killed during those moves and now we see rise of AMD. I would not be surprised that AMD was able to catch up just because of same regulations - Intel was punished for anticompetitive actions and now playing field is more or less level. Google is dumping prices for all products and by that it kills competition unfairly - google maps as a standalone product would not survive because it does not generate ad revenues and it’s free to use. Gmail was also unsustainable for really long time because it was free and without ads. So it’s not as simple as you are saying.