8 ms·

If this is actually true, it has huge ramifications. Google and FB have become two of the largest companies in the world. Why? Because they have an exclusive l

If this is actually true, it has huge ramifications. Google and FB have become two of the largest companies in the world. Why? Because they have an exclusive lock on digital advertising. And remember the illegal non-poaching agreements? Google might look a lot more like Yahoo if these two scandals never occurred. What would be a fair punishment? I am thinking a fine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

vmception 6y ago
So you know what's awesome about doing business and breaking all the rules to get to the top? The government doesn't want to actually debilitate you in an antitrust lawsuit because it could ironically make the nearest competitor a monopoly when your business implodes. Whoopsie! Although monopolies themselves are not illegal as long as anticompetitive practices aren't deployed, the state is still trying to promote competition, and is keen to avoid causing it themselves. Breaking rules is tight! There is a book on this reality if you want to read more.
- dheera 6y ago
  What constitutes anticompetitive practices and why are they illegal? Why are patents and not considered anticompetitive practices?
  - vmception 6y ago
    > Why are patents and not considered anticompetitive practices? Because they are state sanctioned activities, by Congress in reference to an article of the Constitution. > What constitutes anticompetitive practices and why are they illegal? Good question and because the state says so. There are a few, but obviously the incentives for quarterly results are more consequential and lucrative.
    - clankyclanker 6y ago
      That seems like a very circular answer. I'd clarify to say that patents are considered anticompetitive practices. However, they were (as originally envisioned, but certainly not since State Street, possibly earlier) anticompetitive practices that were specifically and purposefully limited in two ways: 1. The filing of a patent requires the filer to disclose the operation of the patented invention such that any art-practiced person could replicate it. Any non-disclosed secrets are protected only under trade-secret law, where the thing is secret only until the secret is out. That's how Coca-Cola has kept the Coke recipe a secret for generations. 2. The patent is enforceable only for a limited period of time (20 years), much like copyright originally was (14x2). Due to innovation pressures, and the fact that companies recognize they build on one anothers' works, that enforcement window hasn't been extended. Instead, companies rely on patent thickets to keep competitors out for the proscribed period of time. As mentioned above, modern patents aren't actually subject to these limitations. Modern drafting lawyers do everything they can to exclude required information in the patient itself so that it can't be used for reproduction, while still claiming patent enforceability on the result. Additionally, patents are also awarded for a vast array of inventions that would've been previously considered unpatentable descriptions of ideas (software and process patents in particular). See Jefferson (e.g., knowledge and candles) for some of the original reasoning behind the system. In other words, since there's no billion dollar industry buying laws requiring fewer and smaller patents, the scope of patentability keeps increasing to the benefit of already entrenched players.
      - vmception 6y ago
        I'm sure that helped someone, it isn't different from my answer and you only focused on patents not the "circular answer" for the universe of what the state says is anticompetitive. The real answer is a dissertation on enforcement actions and circuit court behaviors, which I was not going to write and there is no one answer. Regarding patents, the article of the constitution is an instruction to Congress to secure rights for a "limited time". So maybe you needed to explain that since I guess it isn't common for people to know what the constitution says, in my world I just assume that.
        6y ago
  - _jal 6y ago
    The first part of the first question gets answered in the court room, if it isn't answered by a settlement first. The second part of the first question has different answers, depending on who you're asking. The dominant position currently is that only anticompetitive things that harm consumers should be illegal. (If you only consume free services like, say, Gmail, by definition you cannot be harmed under this theory.) Less radical theories also hold that the marketplace should be competitive, and there are other theories. Making patents illegal would be pretty weird, given that a patent is a monopoly that wouldn't exist without government intervention.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > government doesn't want to actually debilitate you in an antitrust lawsuit because it could ironically make the nearest competitor a monopoly when your business implodes The government isn't a monolith. There are promising political careers in store for those who crack these eggs. That's a powerful incentive.
  - thegreatpeter 6y ago
    It's happened before! Patman did a great job of anti-trust until he was no longer capable of doing it. With all the money going around these days, it would take a real all star to fight back monopolies, but I have hope!
  - vmception 6y ago
    The Department of Justice is the only federal enforcement agency with teeth. It is effectively a monolith. The FTC and SEC only refer and can sometimes come in with fines and administrative remedies but they are easier to defeat. DOJ can get fines as part of a criminal suit. The states are whatever. The new EU can be interesting though. Best of luck to them. But in the US it is clear what is going to happen and why.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > states are whatever Not sure if this is sarcasm. The article is about a suit, brought by state attorneys general, seeking to break up these companies. That’s plenty toothsome.
      - vmception 6y ago
        It isn't sarcasm, good luck to those states. They are trying to act as a parallel union of states because the national government does not serve their interests and as individual states they are completely ignorable.
        CPLX 6y ago
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  what book?
  - vmception 6y ago
    The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives
    - clankyclanker 6y ago
      Seems relevant, also by Eisinger: https://www.propublica.org/article/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-enron-task-force https://www.propublica.org/article/robert-mueller-russia-inv...
      - arthurcolle 6y ago
        thank you kind sir
    - arthurcolle 6y ago
      sweet, thanks. Have you read it? Did you enjoy it?
      - vmception 6y ago
        I enjoyed it a lot.
- varispeed 6y ago
  That's why I think capitalism needs a mechanism to prevent a scenario of "too big to fail". Companies like Facebook should never be allowed to have their Whatsaps, Instagrams and Apple should be split from Apple Store, Google Search from Ad Sense and Ad Words and Gmail and so on to ensure that there can be competition and a free market on a micro scale. For example a search engine over a certain size should be selling access to an API for displaying ads on the same terms as they would sell it to Ad Sense, so competing advertisers could also use the platform. These companies wouldn't have access to Gmail data as that would be a completely separate company and by law prohibited from sharing any personal data. I also think in general ad targeting beyond certain threshold should be illegal as it is not used for marketing, but to manipulate people into buying products they don't need or want. Ok, enough waffling...
dheera 6y ago
I don't fully get what is illegal about what they did. Perhaps unethical, but in what way is rigging the ad market illegal that oil companies, lodging, airline, and auto manufacturers don't already do?
- thegreatpeter 6y ago
  It's not illegal because they're the ones that write the laws. There's nobody to go after these companies anymore. Too much money to go around. Patman was the unsung hero for a half a century in US politics
pmoriarty 6y ago
"What would be a fair punishment? I am thinking a fine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars." Those who were responsible for it would still probably walk away billionaires and millionaires.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tootie 6y ago
I'd be extremely dubious of any lawsuit emanating from AG Paxton. This is the guy who just asked the Supreme Court to set aside the election and let Trump serve another term with absolutely no legal basis. And we know Trump has been trying to punish Silicon Valley for perceived bias. And Paxton is also under indictment for a load of charges of official misconduct. That doesn't mean this case is automatically invalid but I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

vmception 6y ago

So you know what's awesome about doing business and breaking all the rules to get to the top? The government doesn't want to actually debilitate you in an antitrust lawsuit because it could ironically make the nearest competitor a monopoly when your business implodes. Whoopsie! Although monopolies themselves are not illegal as long as anticompetitive practices aren't deployed, the state is still trying to promote competition, and is keen to avoid causing it themselves. Breaking rules is tight! There is a book on this reality if you want to read more.

dheera 6y ago
What constitutes anticompetitive practices and why are they illegal? Why are patents and not considered anticompetitive practices?
- vmception 6y ago
  > Why are patents and not considered anticompetitive practices? Because they are state sanctioned activities, by Congress in reference to an article of the Constitution. > What constitutes anticompetitive practices and why are they illegal? Good question and because the state says so. There are a few, but obviously the incentives for quarterly results are more consequential and lucrative.
  - clankyclanker 6y ago
    That seems like a very circular answer. I'd clarify to say that patents are considered anticompetitive practices. However, they were (as originally envisioned, but certainly not since State Street, possibly earlier) anticompetitive practices that were specifically and purposefully limited in two ways: 1. The filing of a patent requires the filer to disclose the operation of the patented invention such that any art-practiced person could replicate it. Any non-disclosed secrets are protected only under trade-secret law, where the thing is secret only until the secret is out. That's how Coca-Cola has kept the Coke recipe a secret for generations. 2. The patent is enforceable only for a limited period of time (20 years), much like copyright originally was (14x2). Due to innovation pressures, and the fact that companies recognize they build on one anothers' works, that enforcement window hasn't been extended. Instead, companies rely on patent thickets to keep competitors out for the proscribed period of time. As mentioned above, modern patents aren't actually subject to these limitations. Modern drafting lawyers do everything they can to exclude required information in the patient itself so that it can't be used for reproduction, while still claiming patent enforceability on the result. Additionally, patents are also awarded for a vast array of inventions that would've been previously considered unpatentable descriptions of ideas (software and process patents in particular). See Jefferson (e.g., knowledge and candles) for some of the original reasoning behind the system. In other words, since there's no billion dollar industry buying laws requiring fewer and smaller patents, the scope of patentability keeps increasing to the benefit of already entrenched players.
    - vmception 6y ago
      I'm sure that helped someone, it isn't different from my answer and you only focused on patents not the "circular answer" for the universe of what the state says is anticompetitive. The real answer is a dissertation on enforcement actions and circuit court behaviors, which I was not going to write and there is no one answer. Regarding patents, the article of the constitution is an instruction to Congress to secure rights for a "limited time". So maybe you needed to explain that since I guess it isn't common for people to know what the constitution says, in my world I just assume that.
      - 6y ago
- _jal 6y ago
  The first part of the first question gets answered in the court room, if it isn't answered by a settlement first. The second part of the first question has different answers, depending on who you're asking. The dominant position currently is that only anticompetitive things that harm consumers should be illegal. (If you only consume free services like, say, Gmail, by definition you cannot be harmed under this theory.) Less radical theories also hold that the marketplace should be competitive, and there are other theories. Making patents illegal would be pretty weird, given that a patent is a monopoly that wouldn't exist without government intervention.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> government doesn't want to actually debilitate you in an antitrust lawsuit because it could ironically make the nearest competitor a monopoly when your business implodes The government isn't a monolith. There are promising political careers in store for those who crack these eggs. That's a powerful incentive.
- thegreatpeter 6y ago
  It's happened before! Patman did a great job of anti-trust until he was no longer capable of doing it. With all the money going around these days, it would take a real all star to fight back monopolies, but I have hope!
- vmception 6y ago
  The Department of Justice is the only federal enforcement agency with teeth. It is effectively a monolith. The FTC and SEC only refer and can sometimes come in with fines and administrative remedies but they are easier to defeat. DOJ can get fines as part of a criminal suit. The states are whatever. The new EU can be interesting though. Best of luck to them. But in the US it is clear what is going to happen and why.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > states are whatever Not sure if this is sarcasm. The article is about a suit, brought by state attorneys general, seeking to break up these companies. That’s plenty toothsome.
    - vmception 6y ago
      It isn't sarcasm, good luck to those states. They are trying to act as a parallel union of states because the national government does not serve their interests and as individual states they are completely ignorable.
      - CPLX 6y ago
arthurcolle 6y ago
what book?
- vmception 6y ago
  The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives
  - clankyclanker 6y ago
    Seems relevant, also by Eisinger: https://www.propublica.org/article/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-enron-task-force https://www.propublica.org/article/robert-mueller-russia-inv...
    - arthurcolle 6y ago
      thank you kind sir
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    sweet, thanks. Have you read it? Did you enjoy it?
    - vmception 6y ago
      I enjoyed it a lot.
varispeed 6y ago
That's why I think capitalism needs a mechanism to prevent a scenario of "too big to fail". Companies like Facebook should never be allowed to have their Whatsaps, Instagrams and Apple should be split from Apple Store, Google Search from Ad Sense and Ad Words and Gmail and so on to ensure that there can be competition and a free market on a micro scale. For example a search engine over a certain size should be selling access to an API for displaying ads on the same terms as they would sell it to Ad Sense, so competing advertisers could also use the platform. These companies wouldn't have access to Gmail data as that would be a completely separate company and by law prohibited from sharing any personal data. I also think in general ad targeting beyond certain threshold should be illegal as it is not used for marketing, but to manipulate people into buying products they don't need or want. Ok, enough waffling...

dheera 6y ago

I don't fully get what is illegal about what they did. Perhaps unethical, but in what way is rigging the ad market illegal that oil companies, lodging, airline, and auto manufacturers don't already do?

thegreatpeter 6y ago
It's not illegal because they're the ones that write the laws. There's nobody to go after these companies anymore. Too much money to go around. Patman was the unsung hero for a half a century in US politics

pmoriarty 6y ago

"What would be a fair punishment? I am thinking a fine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars." Those who were responsible for it would still probably walk away billionaires and millionaires.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tootie 6y ago

I'd be extremely dubious of any lawsuit emanating from AG Paxton. This is the guy who just asked the Supreme Court to set aside the election and let Trump serve another term with absolutely no legal basis. And we know Trump has been trying to punish Silicon Valley for perceived bias. And Paxton is also under indictment for a load of charges of official misconduct. That doesn't mean this case is automatically invalid but I'm taking it with a grain of salt.