4 ms·
You don't need to carve anything. The market under consideration is not phones. It's phone application publishing and distribution and it is mostly a duopoly.
by brmgb 6y ago
You don't need to carve anything. The market under consideration is not phones.
It's phone application publishing and distribution and it is mostly a duopoly.
Abuse on this market will most likely affect content producers more than users. It's not about consumers'choices. It's about the impact the current situation has on the rest of the market.
- scarface74 6y agoThere was a podcast about how US monopoly law has always been focused on consumers and not producers, but this is the best summary I could find. Notice the focus is on consumer harm. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.as... Antitrust laws also referred to as competition laws, are statutes developed by the U.S. government to protect consumers from predatory business practices. If these laws didn't exist, consumers would not benefit from different options or competition in the marketplace. Furthermore, consumers would be forced to pay higher prices and would have access to a limited supply of products and services.
- brmgb 6y agoThe goal of antitrust law was initially to promote competition. That benefits the consumer because competition leads to either lower prices or improved differentiation. One of the most famous early use of the antitrust is United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. in 1948 which ended the studio system. It was about vertical integration and how the studios used their power to both bully small cinemas and prevent competition on the production side. As you can see, there is no consumer in sight. The Chicago School of economics pushed very hard for narrowing the scope of the law (obviously) but that's a fairly modern take.