4 ms·

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/

by stale2002 6y ago

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations. > very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly. The FTC defines that here: 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" > nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power. Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.

nodamage 6y ago
> So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. Which is in reference to significant market power. So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required. And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm. The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act. And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies. Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC: "A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.". So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred. Feel free to point one out. > "which does not require a monopoly" Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power is in fact required in order to pursue a refusal to deal. In the future when you see someone use the term "monopoly power", you should interpret that to mean "significant and durable market power" instead of "a literal monopoly". It will reduce confusion.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power No, it is not misleading. Instead, your terms are misleading. They are misleading, because when someone says "monopoly power", what someone would immediately jump to is a singular firm. But that is not true. Instead, the only thing required is significant and durable market power. The less misleading term would be to say that a company only has to have significant and durable market power, for it to fall under anti trust law, and you should also point out that it does not require a literal singular firm. > when you see someone use the term "monopoly power" No, actually. What I will do is correct them to instead use the less misleading term. It is a huge misconception that people have, that anti trust law only requires a singular firm for it to apply. It is extremely common for people to say that. It is so common that the literal FTC had to made this clarification in their official information that they released. If the freaking FTC had to release this clarification, then I think that it is important to point this out. > It will reduce confusion. What would instead reduce confusion even more, is if people made a specific effort to point out that a singular firm is not required for anti trust law to apply. Because this is the most common misconception when people talk about anti trust law. (It is so common that the FTC has to clarify this in their documents!)
      - nodamage 6y ago
        Trust me, no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. When someone says Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, they are aware that macOS and Linux exist as competing operating systems. They don't think that Windows is the only operating system in the world.

nodamage 6y ago

> So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.

stale2002 6y ago
> The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. Which is in reference to significant market power. So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required. And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm. The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act. And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies. Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC: "A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.". So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
- nodamage 6y ago
  While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred. Feel free to point one out. > "which does not require a monopoly" Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power is in fact required in order to pursue a refusal to deal. In the future when you see someone use the term "monopoly power", you should interpret that to mean "significant and durable market power" instead of "a literal monopoly". It will reduce confusion.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power No, it is not misleading. Instead, your terms are misleading. They are misleading, because when someone says "monopoly power", what someone would immediately jump to is a singular firm. But that is not true. Instead, the only thing required is significant and durable market power. The less misleading term would be to say that a company only has to have significant and durable market power, for it to fall under anti trust law, and you should also point out that it does not require a literal singular firm. > when you see someone use the term "monopoly power" No, actually. What I will do is correct them to instead use the less misleading term. It is a huge misconception that people have, that anti trust law only requires a singular firm for it to apply. It is extremely common for people to say that. It is so common that the literal FTC had to made this clarification in their official information that they released. If the freaking FTC had to release this clarification, then I think that it is important to point this out. > It will reduce confusion. What would instead reduce confusion even more, is if people made a specific effort to point out that a singular firm is not required for anti trust law to apply. Because this is the most common misconception when people talk about anti trust law. (It is so common that the FTC has to clarify this in their documents!)
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Trust me, no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. When someone says Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, they are aware that macOS and Linux exist as competing operating systems. They don't think that Windows is the only operating system in the world.