3 ms·

If you’re telling me that any sort of vendor lock-in is illegal then this law is being flagrantly violated all the time by everything from computers to razors t

• pydry 4y ago
  He isnt. The illegality or lack thereof is determined by your level of market power.
  • emodendroket 4y ago
    That seems awfully woolly. What he actually said is “using market power to extend market power” is illegal, but without any kind of market power vendor lock-in is pointless.
    • MagnumOpus 4y ago
      Not wooly at all. The "abuse" of a "dominant market position" is illegal. Vendor lock in to raise prices above the competitive level or to extend market share is the abuse, and "dominant market position" is well defined through law and thousands of precedent cases in antitrust. (In Europe Hoffman-La Roche vs. Commission is one of the cases defining it.)
    • Nomentatus 4y ago
      Not pointless, but nothing like as powerful, true. Any lock-in can create market power over a subsection of the market, however small, illegally; but small potatoes stuff is rarely prosecuted. Huge potatoes are rarely prosecuted, post-Bork.
• Nomentatus 4y ago
  Why yes, especially post-Bork, lock-in (and much else) is overlooked in many, many instances. But then, the Sherman Act was passed to hamstring previous "restrain of trade" suits; and was suspiciously rarely used. John Sherman was the brother of General Sherman who ran an urban railroad before and for part of the Civil War. The powers that be serve themselves while pretending to serve the people surprisingly often. Lock-in isn't necessarily illegal (or even avoidable.) Note too that lock-in that's a necessary consequence of IP such as a patent is legal, for the duration of the patent, and no longer.