4 ms·

> 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 m

by 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-...
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Whether monopoly power will be found in this situation will be up to a court Yes... But it is very much not true that a court requires a literal monopoly in order for them to find behaviors to be anti-competitive. All that needs to happen is for a company to have significant market power. So it is not a literal monopoly. Instead, it it having significant market power. And in the US, as of last month, if you are keeping up with the most recent data regarding market share, Apple has about 50% of the US market. > iPhones currently have around 45% Your data is about 6 months out of date. it is now around 50%. It is very much a defendable argument, that has a reasonable chance of standing up in court, that Apple, who has about half the market, in what is effectively a 2 player duopoly, could have significant market power. That is a pretty reasonable argument, that has a real, non-negligible, possibility of standing up in court.
scarface74 6y ago
Personally, I only talk about what the courts do... And the courts have yet to interpret what is illegal in the same manner that HN “lawyers” do....
- stale2002 6y ago
  > And the courts have yet to interpret what is illegal In similar cases, they absolutely have talking about what is illegal, regarding anti-competitive behavior. I would encourage you to read up on similar cases, in order to see what courts have said on the matter. And the courts have said that it does not require a literal, singular monopoly in order for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. All that has to happen is for a company to have significant market share, for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And it seems like all of the “similar” cases where companies are sued for antitrust that are often cited on HN are when two or more companies collide with each other. There is a reason why HN lawyers get all hand wavy when asked to come up with similar examples.

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-...
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Whether monopoly power will be found in this situation will be up to a court Yes... But it is very much not true that a court requires a literal monopoly in order for them to find behaviors to be anti-competitive. All that needs to happen is for a company to have significant market power. So it is not a literal monopoly. Instead, it it having significant market power. And in the US, as of last month, if you are keeping up with the most recent data regarding market share, Apple has about 50% of the US market. > iPhones currently have around 45% Your data is about 6 months out of date. it is now around 50%. It is very much a defendable argument, that has a reasonable chance of standing up in court, that Apple, who has about half the market, in what is effectively a 2 player duopoly, could have significant market power. That is a pretty reasonable argument, that has a real, non-negligible, possibility of standing up in court.

scarface74 6y ago

Personally, I only talk about what the courts do... And the courts have yet to interpret what is illegal in the same manner that HN “lawyers” do....

stale2002 6y ago
> And the courts have yet to interpret what is illegal In similar cases, they absolutely have talking about what is illegal, regarding anti-competitive behavior. I would encourage you to read up on similar cases, in order to see what courts have said on the matter. And the courts have said that it does not require a literal, singular monopoly in order for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. All that has to happen is for a company to have significant market share, for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And it seems like all of the “similar” cases where companies are sued for antitrust that are often cited on HN are when two or more companies collide with each other. There is a reason why HN lawyers get all hand wavy when asked to come up with similar examples.