6 ms·

It was actually abusing their platform to deliberately harm other companies that sparked the antitrust. That abuse created a monopoly but the monopoly was not

It was actually abusing their platform to deliberately harm other companies that sparked the antitrust. That abuse created a monopoly but the monopoly was not why they got in trouble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

toasterlovin 7y ago
The only reason bundling IE was an issue is because Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- benologist 7y ago
  Microsoft had a monopoly, and they leveraged it to create a monopoly, but that does not mean abuse requires a monopoly. Abuse does not require emulating any particular prior instance of abuse.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    But the abuse only becomes a problem when a monopoly creates a lack of alternatives for consumers or suppliers. Amazon sellers have a plethora of other retailers who they can use to reach customers if they don't like Amazon's behavior. Netscape had no such options.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - traek 7y ago
    I don't know why you keep using the term "abuse". There's no statute in antitrust law preventing "abuse". There isn't even a statute defining "abuse". Antitrust laws specifically address using monopoly power to restrain competition.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- Marsymars 7y ago
  > The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action. If it is, it shouldn't be, and we need some similarly concise term for "action to eliminate biased incentives and promote competition for the good of the individual".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    > promote competition for the good of the individual C'mon, this is ridiculous. There is no need to promote competition when competition already exists. Hence a monopoly (or cartel) being a necessary precondition of antitrust action.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      Competition free of biased incentives, but I thought that would be too wordy. Or simply products and services free of biased incentives would be fine too.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Have you actually considered how house brands might be beneficial to consumers? Let me explain. I just did a search for "lightning cable" on Amazon. I don't want to pay $19, or whatever it would cost, to buy an Apple branded lightning cable. So I'm going to go for something cheaper. The top result is by Amazon Basics. Then we have YUNSONG, PLmuzsz, and KRISLOG. I have no idea what those are. I have no idea if I'm going to get a steaming pile of inauthentic shit. But with Amazon Basics, I can at least feel confident that they did a reasonable job of finding and vetting a factory to source the product from. And, more importantly, that they have a vested interest in me having a good experience, since Amazon Basics is Amazon.
        Marsymars 7y ago

toasterlovin 7y ago

The only reason bundling IE was an issue is because Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
benologist 7y ago
Microsoft had a monopoly, and they leveraged it to create a monopoly, but that does not mean abuse requires a monopoly. Abuse does not require emulating any particular prior instance of abuse.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  But the abuse only becomes a problem when a monopoly creates a lack of alternatives for consumers or suppliers. Amazon sellers have a plethora of other retailers who they can use to reach customers if they don't like Amazon's behavior. Netscape had no such options.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- traek 7y ago
  I don't know why you keep using the term "abuse". There's no statute in antitrust law preventing "abuse". There isn't even a statute defining "abuse". Antitrust laws specifically address using monopoly power to restrain competition.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Marsymars 7y ago
> The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action. If it is, it shouldn't be, and we need some similarly concise term for "action to eliminate biased incentives and promote competition for the good of the individual".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > promote competition for the good of the individual C'mon, this is ridiculous. There is no need to promote competition when competition already exists. Hence a monopoly (or cartel) being a necessary precondition of antitrust action.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    Competition free of biased incentives, but I thought that would be too wordy. Or simply products and services free of biased incentives would be fine too.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Have you actually considered how house brands might be beneficial to consumers? Let me explain. I just did a search for "lightning cable" on Amazon. I don't want to pay $19, or whatever it would cost, to buy an Apple branded lightning cable. So I'm going to go for something cheaper. The top result is by Amazon Basics. Then we have YUNSONG, PLmuzsz, and KRISLOG. I have no idea what those are. I have no idea if I'm going to get a steaming pile of inauthentic shit. But with Amazon Basics, I can at least feel confident that they did a reasonable job of finding and vetting a factory to source the product from. And, more importantly, that they have a vested interest in me having a good experience, since Amazon Basics is Amazon.
      - Marsymars 7y ago