5 ms·

> leveraging your market dominance in one area to compete in another is illegal Leveraging your monopoly to compete in another area is illegal. Leveraging a st

> leveraging your market dominance in one area to compete in another is illegal Leveraging your monopoly to compete in another area is illegal. Leveraging a strong position isn’t and Amazon is a long ways from a monopoly.

ardy42 6y ago
> Leveraging your monopoly to compete in another area is illegal. Leveraging a strong position isn’t and Amazon is a long ways from a monopoly. That really depends on interpretation, which has shifted over time and continues to shift. IIRC, recent interpretations of some types of anti-competitive behavior have been rather literal and required something very close to a literal monopoly, which has had the effect of neutering antitrust law in all but the most blatant of cases. My understanding is that it's arguable that it's anti-competitive to leverage market share advantages more broadly (e.g. antitrust law could be used to constrain/break-up a duopoly).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- woof 6y ago
  Amazon, Google, Microsoft is not a duopoly :) And while there are probably some services on AWS you can’t find at a competitor - that’s mostly a choice (aka profit margin) made by the competitor.
M2Ys4U 6y ago
That depends on jurisdiction. In the EU, it is "dominant market position" (and explicitly so) that's the threshold for the Commission to take competition action, for instance.
- notatoad 6y ago
  would AWS be considered "dominant" though? they are the indisputably the market leader, but there's plenty of competition (not trying to argue they aren't dominant. just curious)
  - CRConrad 6y ago
    Presumably they could. I mean, if the EU legislators had intended for a monopoly to be necessary to be considered “dominant”, then they could have written “monopoly”, couldn't they? They didn't write that, so it seems safe to presume they didn't intend that. And if anyone is dominant, then who, if not the market leader?
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    I don't see why not. British Airways only had a 38% market share when they were sued for abusing their dominant market position in 1998 (which was upheld by the Court of Justice in 2007)

ardy42 6y ago

> Leveraging your monopoly to compete in another area is illegal. Leveraging a strong position isn’t and Amazon is a long ways from a monopoly. That really depends on interpretation, which has shifted over time and continues to shift. IIRC, recent interpretations of some types of anti-competitive behavior have been rather literal and required something very close to a literal monopoly, which has had the effect of neutering antitrust law in all but the most blatant of cases. My understanding is that it's arguable that it's anti-competitive to leverage market share advantages more broadly (e.g. antitrust law could be used to constrain/break-up a duopoly).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
woof 6y ago
Amazon, Google, Microsoft is not a duopoly :) And while there are probably some services on AWS you can’t find at a competitor - that’s mostly a choice (aka profit margin) made by the competitor.

M2Ys4U 6y ago

That depends on jurisdiction. In the EU, it is "dominant market position" (and explicitly so) that's the threshold for the Commission to take competition action, for instance.

notatoad 6y ago
would AWS be considered "dominant" though? they are the indisputably the market leader, but there's plenty of competition (not trying to argue they aren't dominant. just curious)
- CRConrad 6y ago
  Presumably they could. I mean, if the EU legislators had intended for a monopoly to be necessary to be considered “dominant”, then they could have written “monopoly”, couldn't they? They didn't write that, so it seems safe to presume they didn't intend that. And if anyone is dominant, then who, if not the market leader?
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  I don't see why not. British Airways only had a 38% market share when they were sued for abusing their dominant market position in 1998 (which was upheld by the Court of Justice in 2007)