4 ms·

is this going to solve anything? sounds like cutting down a tree when it gets too big rather than preventing it growing like that... i'm quite sure companies

is this going to solve anything? sounds like cutting down a tree when it gets too big rather than preventing it growing like that... i'm quite sure companies like google, apple, facebook, etc. are creative enough to find a way to get around this restriction which will just ensure a false sense of security. i get the whole monopoly and fair competition issues, but haven't there been rules and regulations for those for quite a while? apart from that: how realistic is this scenario to get actual laws enforing it when those same companies are pretty much funding the government?

jrs95 8y ago
I don't think it matters, and I don't think it's a proposal that will actually be acted upon. It's just an attempt to get attention for an election she has virtually no chance of winning and posture as being the most progressive candidate.
0xcde4c3db 8y ago
> i'm quite sure companies like google, apple, facebook, etc. are creative enough to find a way to get around this restriction That was my initial reaction as well, but after looking into it a little bit I'm not so sure. The wording of the Sherman Act is pretty broad, and the history of how it's been applied by the courts seems to be pretty complex (as might be expected with a broadly-worded law from 1890), so I'm inclined to doubt any explanation of the situation that would fit on a bumper sticker. There are, I assume, important legal reasons behind how United States v. Microsoft unfolded, with a protracted hard-fought court battle followed by a settlement that imposed some pretty major restrictions on Microsoft. If Microsoft could have easily gotten around the effects of a breakup, I'd expect almost everything about that fight to be different.
- wickedOne 8y ago
  > If Microsoft could have easily gotten around the effects of a breakup, I'd expect almost everything about that fight to be different. you are right and i pretty much forgotten about that. microsoft fought a similar battle in europe with the same legal outcome and basically resulting in a "browser pick" splash when you installed the OS and that was about it. that's a story where there was actually taken some action. but, for example, for years it's been frowned upon that companies like apple "bank" their money in, for example, ireland and get away with not paying taxes in the countries they actually have offices. that's a story where there has been no action for a (known) issue like the one described in the aticle. so how likely will it be that tech giants will create a legal entity abroad, hosting their platform, whilst they will continue to be the biggest player on that platform? i'm not saying ms. warren doesn't have a point, just that it seams that this is just another "symptom control" item which sounds politically correct, but won't get any traction in the "real world"

jrs95 8y ago

I don't think it matters, and I don't think it's a proposal that will actually be acted upon. It's just an attempt to get attention for an election she has virtually no chance of winning and posture as being the most progressive candidate.

0xcde4c3db 8y ago

> i'm quite sure companies like google, apple, facebook, etc. are creative enough to find a way to get around this restriction That was my initial reaction as well, but after looking into it a little bit I'm not so sure. The wording of the Sherman Act is pretty broad, and the history of how it's been applied by the courts seems to be pretty complex (as might be expected with a broadly-worded law from 1890), so I'm inclined to doubt any explanation of the situation that would fit on a bumper sticker. There are, I assume, important legal reasons behind how United States v. Microsoft unfolded, with a protracted hard-fought court battle followed by a settlement that imposed some pretty major restrictions on Microsoft. If Microsoft could have easily gotten around the effects of a breakup, I'd expect almost everything about that fight to be different.

wickedOne 8y ago
> If Microsoft could have easily gotten around the effects of a breakup, I'd expect almost everything about that fight to be different. you are right and i pretty much forgotten about that. microsoft fought a similar battle in europe with the same legal outcome and basically resulting in a "browser pick" splash when you installed the OS and that was about it. that's a story where there was actually taken some action. but, for example, for years it's been frowned upon that companies like apple "bank" their money in, for example, ireland and get away with not paying taxes in the countries they actually have offices. that's a story where there has been no action for a (known) issue like the one described in the aticle. so how likely will it be that tech giants will create a legal entity abroad, hosting their platform, whilst they will continue to be the biggest player on that platform? i'm not saying ms. warren doesn't have a point, just that it seams that this is just another "symptom control" item which sounds politically correct, but won't get any traction in the "real world"