3 ms·
> How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be. https:/
by eganist 4y ago
> How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
That's generally the threshold, and without saying as much (in fact, the author of the article seems to miss this), the article suggests that the talks in question came close to cresting that boundary.
- cjensen 4y agoIf Marriott and Best Foods work together to increase both profits, that's not an anti-trust violation just because they work together. The article you cite enumerates a number of categories of violations, but you haven't identified which one you think "working together" inherently violates. My guess is you are talking about Monopolization, but since neither Facebook nor Apple is a monopoly, and since Facebook and Apple do not compete against each other, I'm not sure how that fits.
- chottocharaii 4y ago'monopoly' is a shorthand for an unacceptable abuse of market power It is not being used literally. Of course FB & Facebook are not 'literal' monopoloies Your pedantry does not detract from the point being made by the comment above
- cjensen 4y agoAre you trying to say that the poster I replied to, who specifically linked to a Wikipedia article about US Anti-trust Law, was not literally referring to US Anti-trust Law? And that I am being pedantic for assuming the parent poster meant what they said about the law they linked to? Did you perhaps mean to respond to a different comment?