4 ms·

Has there been evidence given why these 4 and not Microsoft are at these hearings? I understand each case is subtly different but it seems conspicuous in it's a

Has there been evidence given why these 4 and not Microsoft are at these hearings? I understand each case is subtly different but it seems conspicuous in it's absence. In terms of Big Tech companies potentially violating anti-trust feels odd to include companies 1,3,4,5 but not 2? (Not actually sure what the current comparative values are)

zozbot234 6y ago
Double jeopardy, I assume. There was already an antitrust case wrt. Microsoft in 1998–2001, so they won't need to defend those issues all over again.
- non-entity 6y ago
  Would double jeopardy only apply if they were being charged for the same instance of antitrust violations as back then? You can commit a crime multiple times, you just can't be punished for the same instance twice. Maybe I understand this wrong though.
Kednicma 6y ago
Presumably Microsoft, having been convicted once already, is not going to be given such benefit of the doubt as to be invited to a hearing; instead, folks may well decide to bring suit against them without bothering to drag them before Congress as a pretext. Moreover, Microsoft doesn't have a flagship product which they're using to abuse their monopoly position. The other four do: Apple has its app store, Google has its search+ads vertical and its app store, Amazon has its delivery service, and Facebook has its social+ads vertical.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  I'd say Amazon's "flagship product" is its platform, not so much its delivery. You might call it a platform+delivery-logistics vertical. Regardless, their ownership of the dominant platform for ecommerce does put third-party vendors (and possibly consumers) at a disadvantage.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    This is a good point. The major negative impact of Amazon is on labor rights. I had a sobering conversation with a canvasser who came to my door last week; they were gathering signatures for a local bill, but their other job was at the Amazon warehouse, and they suggested that walking in the hot sun and talking to hostile folks in their home was far easier than running up and down the halls of Fulfillment. It's a common sentiment that Sherman Antitrust was a prerequisite for prosecuting and breaking up trusts a century ago; we needed powerful legislative tools in order to even define and understand the abuses that those corporations brought upon us. Similarly, I have heard many people suggest that we will need new legislation in order to properly describe what Amazon has built in terms of systems which deliberately abuse labor, control shoppers, and grift the public.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And only if you redefine “monopoly” as “only one company gets to sell its own products”. Why not drag the console makers in too?
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Neither console game developers nor console game players are complaining. I think it's really that simple. EDIT: And I think I know the reason why. Imagine your kid has a birthday party and invites Alice, Bob and Charlie from school. All is fine. Imagine now that he invites everyone from his grade. Everyone except David. That is bound to piss David off a lot. Oh and I think game deals are cleared in advance, while app removals happen after you've already done the work.
    - smileybarry 6y ago
      It's mostly understandable because, historically, video game exclusives were either developed or published by the console manufacturer. Some people might get annoyed that this cool game isn't coming to their platform of choice, but as soon as they saw "published by Sony", they understood. They've also helped pay for the console with hardware sold at a loss (near-loss nowadays after the PS3 loss mess). So it was seen as a necessary "evil" by most. The one being seen nowadays as bad -- which answers your "everyone except David" metaphor -- is Epic Games buying "everyone except Steam" exclusivity deals. But that topic is too deep to go into here.
    - mrep 6y ago
      Consoles are also harder to pirate games on which I'm guessing is why rockstar games always releases first on consoles.
spaced-out 6y ago
What anti-trust practices should Microsoft be questioned on?
- Anechoic 6y ago
  As pro-am mentioned, non-defeatable Telemetry.
  - smileybarry 6y ago
    How does that answer the definition of antitrust?
  - tozeur 6y ago
    I think it would benefit you to read more about what can be considered an anti-trust issue: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- jsnell 6y ago
  They did just have an antitrust complaint in the EU from Slack in the last week... And there was some hoopla a year ago about the windows licensing terms changing in a way that made migrating Windows workloads from on prem to cloud difficult for the main cloud providers except for Azure.

zozbot234 6y ago

Double jeopardy, I assume. There was already an antitrust case wrt. Microsoft in 1998–2001, so they won't need to defend those issues all over again.

non-entity 6y ago
Would double jeopardy only apply if they were being charged for the same instance of antitrust violations as back then? You can commit a crime multiple times, you just can't be punished for the same instance twice. Maybe I understand this wrong though.

Kednicma 6y ago

Presumably Microsoft, having been convicted once already, is not going to be given such benefit of the doubt as to be invited to a hearing; instead, folks may well decide to bring suit against them without bothering to drag them before Congress as a pretext. Moreover, Microsoft doesn't have a flagship product which they're using to abuse their monopoly position. The other four do: Apple has its app store, Google has its search+ads vertical and its app store, Amazon has its delivery service, and Facebook has its social+ads vertical.

zozbot234 6y ago
I'd say Amazon's "flagship product" is its platform, not so much its delivery. You might call it a platform+delivery-logistics vertical. Regardless, their ownership of the dominant platform for ecommerce does put third-party vendors (and possibly consumers) at a disadvantage.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  This is a good point. The major negative impact of Amazon is on labor rights. I had a sobering conversation with a canvasser who came to my door last week; they were gathering signatures for a local bill, but their other job was at the Amazon warehouse, and they suggested that walking in the hot sun and talking to hostile folks in their home was far easier than running up and down the halls of Fulfillment. It's a common sentiment that Sherman Antitrust was a prerequisite for prosecuting and breaking up trusts a century ago; we needed powerful legislative tools in order to even define and understand the abuses that those corporations brought upon us. Similarly, I have heard many people suggest that we will need new legislation in order to properly describe what Amazon has built in terms of systems which deliberately abuse labor, control shoppers, and grift the public.
scarface74 6y ago
And only if you redefine “monopoly” as “only one company gets to sell its own products”. Why not drag the console makers in too?
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Neither console game developers nor console game players are complaining. I think it's really that simple. EDIT: And I think I know the reason why. Imagine your kid has a birthday party and invites Alice, Bob and Charlie from school. All is fine. Imagine now that he invites everyone from his grade. Everyone except David. That is bound to piss David off a lot. Oh and I think game deals are cleared in advance, while app removals happen after you've already done the work.
  - smileybarry 6y ago
    It's mostly understandable because, historically, video game exclusives were either developed or published by the console manufacturer. Some people might get annoyed that this cool game isn't coming to their platform of choice, but as soon as they saw "published by Sony", they understood. They've also helped pay for the console with hardware sold at a loss (near-loss nowadays after the PS3 loss mess). So it was seen as a necessary "evil" by most. The one being seen nowadays as bad -- which answers your "everyone except David" metaphor -- is Epic Games buying "everyone except Steam" exclusivity deals. But that topic is too deep to go into here.
  - mrep 6y ago
    Consoles are also harder to pirate games on which I'm guessing is why rockstar games always releases first on consoles.

spaced-out 6y ago

What anti-trust practices should Microsoft be questioned on?

Anechoic 6y ago
As pro-am mentioned, non-defeatable Telemetry.
- smileybarry 6y ago
  How does that answer the definition of antitrust?
- tozeur 6y ago
  I think it would benefit you to read more about what can be considered an anti-trust issue: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
jsnell 6y ago
They did just have an antitrust complaint in the EU from Slack in the last week... And there was some hoopla a year ago about the windows licensing terms changing in a way that made migrating Windows workloads from on prem to cloud difficult for the main cloud providers except for Azure.