4 ms·

Not in the sense that we're worried about here. I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out, but we're using "monopoly" in the sense of "monopolistic abuse

by ethbr0 4y ago

Not in the sense that we're worried about here. I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out, but we're using "monopoly" in the sense of "monopolistic abuse specifically enabled by large revenue and/or platform gatekeeping." Whether you think other kinds of monopolies are a problem or not is immaterial, because we're talking about a specific type of monopoly, that a number of us do have a problem with.

uhuruity 4y ago
I have several friends who work in antitrust consulting. My understanding from listening to them talk is that monopolists are defined with respect to a market, and defining the relevant market is a task in itself. Surely the defining characteristic of a monopolist is that it has a high proportion of the market share for a given market, and it is not required that the market in question be large? You can have a monopoly over a small market.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Afaik, that's the (modern, post-1918, [0]) definition of a monopoly under Sherman Antitrust Act (of 1890). And specifically, that a monopoly's nature and actions "[must] suppress or even destroy competition." Think duck typing. Unfortunately, US vs ATT was never decided, as ATT volunteered to be broken up in 1982. But the broader approach seems to have been that small monopolies are not harmful to the public good, as they face the potential of competitors (sometimes, larger ones) expanding from unrelated fields into their business. It's only when a successful company leverages its success into a size (and dominance) that makes competition impossible that it becomes a legally actionable monopoly (by restricting even the possibility of competition). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._Un...
  - uhuruity 4y ago
    Ooh, I didn't know this. I will go to the next discussion with my antitrust friends armed with my new info. Thanks for sharing this!

by ethbr0 4y ago

uhuruity 4y ago

I have several friends who work in antitrust consulting. My understanding from listening to them talk is that monopolists are defined with respect to a market, and defining the relevant market is a task in itself. Surely the defining characteristic of a monopolist is that it has a high proportion of the market share for a given market, and it is not required that the market in question be large? You can have a monopoly over a small market.

ethbr0 4y ago
Afaik, that's the (modern, post-1918, [0]) definition of a monopoly under Sherman Antitrust Act (of 1890). And specifically, that a monopoly's nature and actions "[must] suppress or even destroy competition." Think duck typing. Unfortunately, US vs ATT was never decided, as ATT volunteered to be broken up in 1982. But the broader approach seems to have been that small monopolies are not harmful to the public good, as they face the potential of competitors (sometimes, larger ones) expanding from unrelated fields into their business. It's only when a successful company leverages its success into a size (and dominance) that makes competition impossible that it becomes a legally actionable monopoly (by restricting even the possibility of competition). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._Un...
- uhuruity 4y ago
  Ooh, I didn't know this. I will go to the next discussion with my antitrust friends armed with my new info. Thanks for sharing this!