5 ms·
I don't see the relevance here. Google knows that both sense of "monopoly" can and have been regulated by the government since Standard Oil was broken up. Hence
by tgb 6y ago
I don't see the relevance here. Google knows that both sense of "monopoly" can and have been regulated by the government since Standard Oil was broken up. Hence the threat of regulation did not stop Google from investing in innovation.
- jeffbee 6y agoDoes the comparison to Standard Oil stand scrutiny? The case against Standard Oil wasn't merely that they were popular. After all, kerosene is an undifferentiated commodity where consumers have no preference other than price. The case against Standard Oil was that they held such a breadth of natural resources (which are exclusive; no two parties can pump oil the same barrel of crude oil), and capital-intensive assets such as pipelines and railroads where Standard Oil was bribing the operators to get them to charge higher rates to their competitors. So what's the comparable unfair practice? You believe Google is paying Level3 under the table to make sure all its competitors pay more for network transit?
- tgb 6y agoThe comparison holds up if the claim, as stickfigure made, was that the relevant factor is whether or not there is a legally-enforced monopoly. US vs Microsoft shows that the factors you cite aren't necessary either.
- jeffbee 6y agoMicrosoft closely parallels Standard Oil in this regard. Microsoft was forcing Dell to charge a higher price for competing operating systems (in effect, Microsoft got paid $100 every time Dell shipped a computer with OS/2 or whatever). I can easily see how the first party forcing the second party to charge a higher rate to the third party is abusive.