5 ms·

Not allowing competitors to build a store on your property isn’t anti-competitive. And you clearly don’t understand the Microsoft case, where it had 90% of the

Not allowing competitors to build a store on your property isn’t anti-competitive. And you clearly don’t understand the Microsoft case, where it had 90% of the operating system market. Customers want the best possible products, forcing Apple to make their product worse, with worse security, a worse purchase experience, robs customers of an important choice. Judges do make terrible rulings all the time. Like the Apple e-books case, where trying to ensure a level playing field was deemed “anti-competitive”, leading to Amazon to significantly grow market share and establishing an unassailable monopoly position since the ruling.

RonanTheGrey 6y ago
> Not allowing competitors to build a store on your property isn’t anti-competitive. The difference is that in the real world, there is more property. In the digital world, there isn't, unless you count Android -- and the problem with that is you run into the "Well why don't the company men just leave the company town, then?" It's the "let them eat cake!" argument and it doesn't go over well.
stale2002 6y ago
> And you clearly don’t understand the Microsoft case, where it had 90% of the operating system market. Once again, the government does not require a literal monopoly for behavior to be anti-competitive. 50% of a market in the US could absolutely be enough to count as significant market power. The situations are pretty similar, because your argument about 90% is not what the courts care about. The courts care about market power, not necessarily a literal monopoly. > Judges do make terrible rulings all the time I mean, if you don't care about the courts system or the law, then I don't know what to tell you. Your opinion on it doesn't particularly matter, because the courts are the ones in charge of this, and the courts are the ones who make the decision here. > Like the Apple e-books case Well, too bad for Apple. The law is the law, and the court system is the court system. Personally, I only talk about what the courts do. I don't really care about someone's opinion if the courts disagree with them. Because the courts and the judges are the ones that make the decision here. They decide. And everything that I have said is within this context of what courts and judges have done in the past.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > The situations are pretty similar, because your argument about 90% is not what the courts care about. The courts care about market power, not necessarily a literal monopoly. To be clear, whether the court cares about monopoly power or not depends on what type of claim you are making. Section 1 of the Sherman Act deals with conspiracy and unreasonable restraints of trade and may not require establishing any market power at all. Some actions such as price fixing and bid rigging are considered per se illegal regardless of market power. Other actions (such as tying) require an analysis of market power, but not necessarily monopoly power. Section 2 of the Sherman Act deals with monopolization and claims made under section 2 will require establishing monopoly power (or likelihood of achieving monopoly power, for attempted monopolization claims). In the context of the Microsoft case, the 90% market share was indeed relevant to the court because several of the claims were brought under section 2, specifically having to do with Microsoft's unlawful attempts to maintain their operating system monopoly.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power" This is what I mean by that. This applies to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the link that I posted mentions this. I do not mean what you are trying to say, which is that one section does not require a literal monopoly, and another does. Instead, I am saying, that explicitly, for Section 2 of the Sherman Act, "monopoly" does not mean a singular firm, and the colloquial definition of that, is incorrect. Instead, it only requires significant market power. > will require establishing monopoly power "Monopoly power" can absolutely exist in the case of a company having 50% of the market. This is what that government statement means.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Note that your link says that the courts typically do not find monopoly power if the firm has less than 50% share of the market. iPhones currently have around 45% market share in the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-... Whether monopoly power will be found in this situation will be up to a court and it's far from a slam dunk. For a more detailed examination of the factors involved in determining monopoly power please see this article: https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

RonanTheGrey 6y ago

> Not allowing competitors to build a store on your property isn’t anti-competitive. The difference is that in the real world, there is more property. In the digital world, there isn't, unless you count Android -- and the problem with that is you run into the "Well why don't the company men just leave the company town, then?" It's the "let them eat cake!" argument and it doesn't go over well.

stale2002 6y ago

> And you clearly don’t understand the Microsoft case, where it had 90% of the operating system market. Once again, the government does not require a literal monopoly for behavior to be anti-competitive. 50% of a market in the US could absolutely be enough to count as significant market power. The situations are pretty similar, because your argument about 90% is not what the courts care about. The courts care about market power, not necessarily a literal monopoly. > Judges do make terrible rulings all the time I mean, if you don't care about the courts system or the law, then I don't know what to tell you. Your opinion on it doesn't particularly matter, because the courts are the ones in charge of this, and the courts are the ones who make the decision here. > Like the Apple e-books case Well, too bad for Apple. The law is the law, and the court system is the court system. Personally, I only talk about what the courts do. I don't really care about someone's opinion if the courts disagree with them. Because the courts and the judges are the ones that make the decision here. They decide. And everything that I have said is within this context of what courts and judges have done in the past.

nodamage 6y ago
> The situations are pretty similar, because your argument about 90% is not what the courts care about. The courts care about market power, not necessarily a literal monopoly. To be clear, whether the court cares about monopoly power or not depends on what type of claim you are making. Section 1 of the Sherman Act deals with conspiracy and unreasonable restraints of trade and may not require establishing any market power at all. Some actions such as price fixing and bid rigging are considered per se illegal regardless of market power. Other actions (such as tying) require an analysis of market power, but not necessarily monopoly power. Section 2 of the Sherman Act deals with monopolization and claims made under section 2 will require establishing monopoly power (or likelihood of achieving monopoly power, for attempted monopolization claims). In the context of the Microsoft case, the 90% market share was indeed relevant to the court because several of the claims were brought under section 2, specifically having to do with Microsoft's unlawful attempts to maintain their operating system monopoly.
- stale2002 6y ago
  https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power" This is what I mean by that. This applies to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the link that I posted mentions this. I do not mean what you are trying to say, which is that one section does not require a literal monopoly, and another does. Instead, I am saying, that explicitly, for Section 2 of the Sherman Act, "monopoly" does not mean a singular firm, and the colloquial definition of that, is incorrect. Instead, it only requires significant market power. > will require establishing monopoly power "Monopoly power" can absolutely exist in the case of a company having 50% of the market. This is what that government statement means.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Note that your link says that the courts typically do not find monopoly power if the firm has less than 50% share of the market. iPhones currently have around 45% market share in the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-... Whether monopoly power will be found in this situation will be up to a court and it's far from a slam dunk. For a more detailed examination of the factors involved in determining monopoly power please see this article: https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...