4 ms·

> To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be

> To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.

stale2002 6y ago
> The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works. It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry. The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power. 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" So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands. Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required. 50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.