4 ms·

> Traditional notions of market share were companies selling commodities (oil, rail travel) with undifferentiated products This is not correct. Market shares

> Traditional notions of market share were companies selling commodities (oil, rail travel) with undifferentiated products This is not correct. Market shares are perfectly well defined and understood in the differentiated products case. Indeed, it is precisely the fact that products are differentiated that makes market definition an important part of nearly every antitrust proceeding: where should the market start and stop? What market is being monopolized? The FTC failed to come up with a good market definition here, among other problems.

Ericson2314 5y ago
> This is not correct. Market shares are perfectly well defined and understood in the differentiated products case. Yes, we do know more about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition, but clearly many industries are extremely consolidated. Are you saying existing anti-trust law is good enough and we simply need to start enforcing it? > Indeed, it is precisely the fact that products are differentiated that makes market definition an important part of nearly every antitrust proceeding: where should the market start and stop? What market is being monopolized? Well with my second part, I was trying to get towards the relationship Facebook and Google have with their users, which does not involve money by being exchange by and large, probably couldn't be characterized in a way that would please the court. Indeed, perhaps it would be hard to characterize it as a market in the traditional sense at all. > The FTC failed to come up with a good market definition here, among other problems. Indeed the FTC's move does look bad based on what the court is saying, but I am skeptical that they would be able to do sufficiently better to win something big --- which is breaking up big companies. (Fines will never cut it.) That some of the recently drafted laws are seeming written to hit tech and not other large firms is also disappointing.

Ericson2314 5y ago

> This is not correct. Market shares are perfectly well defined and understood in the differentiated products case. Yes, we do know more about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition, but clearly many industries are extremely consolidated. Are you saying existing anti-trust law is good enough and we simply need to start enforcing it? > Indeed, it is precisely the fact that products are differentiated that makes market definition an important part of nearly every antitrust proceeding: where should the market start and stop? What market is being monopolized? Well with my second part, I was trying to get towards the relationship Facebook and Google have with their users, which does not involve money by being exchange by and large, probably couldn't be characterized in a way that would please the court. Indeed, perhaps it would be hard to characterize it as a market in the traditional sense at all. > The FTC failed to come up with a good market definition here, among other problems. Indeed the FTC's move does look bad based on what the court is saying, but I am skeptical that they would be able to do sufficiently better to win something big --- which is breaking up big companies. (Fines will never cut it.) That some of the recently drafted laws are seeming written to hit tech and not other large firms is also disappointing.