6 ms·

> Watershed moment in how we "price" monopolistic power. It's not "market share" or "barriers to entry" or even engaging in "anti-competitive behavior" anymore.

> Watershed moment in how we "price" monopolistic power. It's not "market share" or "barriers to entry" or even engaging in "anti-competitive behavior" anymore. But more about how corporations can control the free flow of information. Much harder to make that case for the government I should imagine. I don't know if or how this fits within actual antitrust law, but it makes sense that the issue was never price gouging, the issue was one entity gaining too much power. In a theoretical dystopian future, a megacorp could own 99% of market share of all industries in the country, but intentionally offer very low prices on every product to avoid "monopoly" concerns. It becomes clear: monopolistic pricing is just a symptom, not the real issue. The real issue is power. If this suit (and followup suits on other megacorps) fail, the future may call for new laws to define monopolistic power in novel ways, as soon as we the people recognize that getting search and email and social media for free doesn't mean that the megacorps are on our side.

hammock 6y ago
>I don't know if or how this fits within actual antitrust law, but it makes sense that the issue was never price gouging, the issue was one entity gaining too much power. In the US, there are two major areas of antitrust law and enforcement: 1) Sherman & Clayton Acts (1890, 1914) - outlaws cartels and anticompetitive activities (that is, activities that tend to lead to monopolies, but doesn't outlaw monopolies themselves). Price gouging is not an antitrust issue, but predatory pricing and price fixing are (you might have meant these terms). This area is primarily established via case law and enforced by the courts (and DOJ AD). 2) Merger guidelines/Federal Trade Commission (1968) - wherein key mergers must be reviewed and approved by the FTC. This area is more sensitive to political climate / executive branch as it's executive-appointed FTC regulators who set the guidelines and give approvals. We are now exiting an era of historic hands-off-ness. Source: had a professor who is famous in antitrust world
- ShamelessC 6y ago
  Have we ever "busted up a monopoly" using 2? Is the FTC able to retroactively split up a company that was originally formed via large mergers and acquisitions? Split out e.g. Youtube from Google as it was originally an acquisition? That seems unlikely to me but I don't know much about it at all. If you can't do that, then you're basically just preventing a monopoly from happening in advance, right? Or trying to at least. At any rate, I'm assuming US vs. Google will be required to reference precedent set in Sherman & Clayton + subsequent court rulings and _not_ be able to use their own mergers against them as they were approved by the FTC in the first place. Is that also correct?
BurningFrog 6y ago
If you're worried about power, the by far biggest monopolist there is the US Federal Government.
- Quanttek 6y ago
  Governments are still (largely) accountable to the people, in contrast to corporations, which are not accountable whatsoever (except through gov regulation). Your comment is just detraction
  - 121789 6y ago
    that's interesting. I can delete my FB account or Amazon account. how can I do this with my government?
    - urtie 6y ago
      Move to a different country. Apply for citizenship. Renounce your original citizenship. Rules may apply...
      - jonny_eh 6y ago
        Vote. By voting you can ditch the old government and install a new one.
      - bmelton 6y ago
        Note: The cancellation fees for US Citizenship can be quite high!
    - f0rmatfunction 6y ago
      That's missing the point. Deleting your FB account doesn't affect FB's power or practices. Does it make you slightly less directly affected by their nonsense? Sure, but it's often a false sense of security. If disinformation on FB results in a different outcome to your election, or prevents parents from thinking a COVID vaccine is safe, or whatever else, that affects your life even if you're not on the platform. You have a say in your government's leadership. Don't like the President? Vote them out. Don't like Zuck? Nothing you can do about it.

hammock 6y ago

>I don't know if or how this fits within actual antitrust law, but it makes sense that the issue was never price gouging, the issue was one entity gaining too much power. In the US, there are two major areas of antitrust law and enforcement: 1) Sherman & Clayton Acts (1890, 1914) - outlaws cartels and anticompetitive activities (that is, activities that tend to lead to monopolies, but doesn't outlaw monopolies themselves). Price gouging is not an antitrust issue, but predatory pricing and price fixing are (you might have meant these terms). This area is primarily established via case law and enforced by the courts (and DOJ AD). 2) Merger guidelines/Federal Trade Commission (1968) - wherein key mergers must be reviewed and approved by the FTC. This area is more sensitive to political climate / executive branch as it's executive-appointed FTC regulators who set the guidelines and give approvals. We are now exiting an era of historic hands-off-ness. Source: had a professor who is famous in antitrust world

ShamelessC 6y ago
Have we ever "busted up a monopoly" using 2? Is the FTC able to retroactively split up a company that was originally formed via large mergers and acquisitions? Split out e.g. Youtube from Google as it was originally an acquisition? That seems unlikely to me but I don't know much about it at all. If you can't do that, then you're basically just preventing a monopoly from happening in advance, right? Or trying to at least. At any rate, I'm assuming US vs. Google will be required to reference precedent set in Sherman & Clayton + subsequent court rulings and _not_ be able to use their own mergers against them as they were approved by the FTC in the first place. Is that also correct?

BurningFrog 6y ago

If you're worried about power, the by far biggest monopolist there is the US Federal Government.

Quanttek 6y ago
Governments are still (largely) accountable to the people, in contrast to corporations, which are not accountable whatsoever (except through gov regulation). Your comment is just detraction
- 121789 6y ago
  that's interesting. I can delete my FB account or Amazon account. how can I do this with my government?
  - urtie 6y ago
    Move to a different country. Apply for citizenship. Renounce your original citizenship. Rules may apply...
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      Vote. By voting you can ditch the old government and install a new one.
    - bmelton 6y ago
      Note: The cancellation fees for US Citizenship can be quite high!
  - f0rmatfunction 6y ago
    That's missing the point. Deleting your FB account doesn't affect FB's power or practices. Does it make you slightly less directly affected by their nonsense? Sure, but it's often a false sense of security. If disinformation on FB results in a different outcome to your election, or prevents parents from thinking a COVID vaccine is safe, or whatever else, that affects your life even if you're not on the platform. You have a say in your government's leadership. Don't like the President? Vote them out. Don't like Zuck? Nothing you can do about it.