5 ms·

The government tried to stop it! And the government was forced to make their case in court, but the government lost and ATT won. The government is now appealin

The government tried to stop it! And the government was forced to make their case in court, but the government lost and ATT won. The government is now appealing. How would you design an alternate system? Government gets to decide with no recourse for the company to make their case?

craftyguy 8y ago
Courts are too OP. Un-elected officials with 0 accountability getting to override legislation put forth by elected officials seems silly. I don't know what the 'right' system is, but the current one allows for situations like the one in the article to be perfectly OK and, IMHO, is broken.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  An independent judiciary with judicial review of laws is a cornerstone of an effective democracy that ensures minority rights. Judges are accountable. You just have to impeach them.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > ensures minority rights. Except when they don't, like in the case of the 'muslim ban' and the specific case here with the creation of a new monopoly.
    - jimbokun 8y ago
      There was a lot of judicial push back on the Muslim ban. Pretty sure they forced the Trump administration to make significant changes to it before it could be enforced.
wpasc 8y ago
US anti trust enforcement often looks at consumer harm (which seems to focus on immediate obvious harm, or lack thereof). So adjusting the law such that the anti trust rules are stricter. The massive consolidation in soo many US industries I think has done a large disservice to the country and long term prospects for the economy by massively reduced competition
- ethbro 8y ago
  Agreed. There's a lot to be said for deciding anti-trust also on the basis of harm to potential new entrants to the market.
basch 8y ago
The law isnt built for modern companies. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
derefr 8y ago
Perhaps, beyond a given company size, mergers+acquisitions should be considered illegal until proven legal (i.e. the burden of proof should be on the merging companies.)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  With a preponderance of evidence standard as the US uses for civil cases, who bears the initial burden of proof really should only matter in the case where neither side can present substantial evidence, since of there is conflicting evidence, the winner should be the same either way.
babypuncher 8y ago
The courts believed that the merger would not be a problem with our current anti-trust laws. The governments response should be to pass stricter laws that address the concerns of the court.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

craftyguy 8y ago

Courts are too OP. Un-elected officials with 0 accountability getting to override legislation put forth by elected officials seems silly. I don't know what the 'right' system is, but the current one allows for situations like the one in the article to be perfectly OK and, IMHO, is broken.

jonathankoren 8y ago
An independent judiciary with judicial review of laws is a cornerstone of an effective democracy that ensures minority rights. Judges are accountable. You just have to impeach them.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > ensures minority rights. Except when they don't, like in the case of the 'muslim ban' and the specific case here with the creation of a new monopoly.
  - jimbokun 8y ago
    There was a lot of judicial push back on the Muslim ban. Pretty sure they forced the Trump administration to make significant changes to it before it could be enforced.

wpasc 8y ago

US anti trust enforcement often looks at consumer harm (which seems to focus on immediate obvious harm, or lack thereof). So adjusting the law such that the anti trust rules are stricter. The massive consolidation in soo many US industries I think has done a large disservice to the country and long term prospects for the economy by massively reduced competition

ethbro 8y ago
Agreed. There's a lot to be said for deciding anti-trust also on the basis of harm to potential new entrants to the market.

basch 8y ago

The law isnt built for modern companies. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

derefr 8y ago

Perhaps, beyond a given company size, mergers+acquisitions should be considered illegal until proven legal (i.e. the burden of proof should be on the merging companies.)

dragonwriter 8y ago
With a preponderance of evidence standard as the US uses for civil cases, who bears the initial burden of proof really should only matter in the case where neither side can present substantial evidence, since of there is conflicting evidence, the winner should be the same either way.

babypuncher 8y ago

The courts believed that the merger would not be a problem with our current anti-trust laws. The governments response should be to pass stricter laws that address the concerns of the court.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]