5 ms·

Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively. > The lawsuit said Google had “corrupted

Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively. > The lawsuit said Google had “corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers and brokers to facilitate digital advertising.”

postalrat 4y ago
Then their first target should be Apple.
- judge2020 4y ago
  Epic Games is still fighting their antitrust case against Apple so the federal government isn’t going to swoop in and take over the case. If Epic truly fails and DOJ doesn’t see it as a favorable outcome, they might further explore antitrust litigation.
- brookst 4y ago
  I've never understood this kind of "regulators should ignore evidence of wrongdoing as long as there is also evidence of someone else engaging in wrongdoing" thinking. Even granting that Apple is super-mega-unbearably evil, do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted?
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted? Actually, yes. Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. It makes the problem even worse than before. As a consumer who doesn't want to use Apple devices, and uses Google because that's basically the only other option for many things, anything that greatly harms Google harms me. Take down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. After Apple is broken apart, then Google becomes the #1 problem, so go after them at that time. (Yes, I know this particular case probably won't have that much effect on Google.)
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. And yet immediately: > ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue. Google's Android is #1 Google's Chrome is #1 Google's search is #1 Google's ad engine is #1 Google's Gmail is #1
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        According to a quick google search, iOS has almost 60% marketshare in the US. Many other top-GDP nations are similar. A bunch of people in India using Android isn't much help when you're in a country where most people use Apple. By your logic, most monopolies shouldn't be investigated or regulated at all, because most people on the entire planet don't use their products. One airline is fine, because most humans don't ever fly. One car company is fine, because most humans don't have cars. Etc.
        brookst 4y ago
        Coke has 60% market share for colas in the US. Do your same complaints apply? It all depends on how you define the market. If you’re motivated to desire a certain outcome, it’s easy to define the market in a way to get what you want.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        Choosing to drink Coke doesn't force you to eat or drink anything else; there's no customer lock-in possible with a drink, nor any way of using that power to extend market dominance into other sectors.
lolinder 4y ago
> Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively. Indeed, the original purpose of anti-trust laws was to prevent trusts and cartels--multiple companies collectively fixing prices and ensuring that no new entrants can compete.
tzs 4y ago
> Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively Also, having a monopoly (even an absolution monopoly) does not automatically mean you are violating antitrust law. You had to do something anti-competitive to get that monopoly or be doing something anti-competitive to maintain it. The easiest way to think about it is that US antitrust law is about preventing monopolization, not about preventing monopolies.

postalrat 4y ago

Then their first target should be Apple.

judge2020 4y ago
Epic Games is still fighting their antitrust case against Apple so the federal government isn’t going to swoop in and take over the case. If Epic truly fails and DOJ doesn’t see it as a favorable outcome, they might further explore antitrust litigation.
brookst 4y ago
I've never understood this kind of "regulators should ignore evidence of wrongdoing as long as there is also evidence of someone else engaging in wrongdoing" thinking. Even granting that Apple is super-mega-unbearably evil, do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted? Actually, yes. Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. It makes the problem even worse than before. As a consumer who doesn't want to use Apple devices, and uses Google because that's basically the only other option for many things, anything that greatly harms Google harms me. Take down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. After Apple is broken apart, then Google becomes the #1 problem, so go after them at that time. (Yes, I know this particular case probably won't have that much effect on Google.)
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. And yet immediately: > ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue. Google's Android is #1 Google's Chrome is #1 Google's search is #1 Google's ad engine is #1 Google's Gmail is #1
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      According to a quick google search, iOS has almost 60% marketshare in the US. Many other top-GDP nations are similar. A bunch of people in India using Android isn't much help when you're in a country where most people use Apple. By your logic, most monopolies shouldn't be investigated or regulated at all, because most people on the entire planet don't use their products. One airline is fine, because most humans don't ever fly. One car company is fine, because most humans don't have cars. Etc.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Coke has 60% market share for colas in the US. Do your same complaints apply? It all depends on how you define the market. If you’re motivated to desire a certain outcome, it’s easy to define the market in a way to get what you want.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        Choosing to drink Coke doesn't force you to eat or drink anything else; there's no customer lock-in possible with a drink, nor any way of using that power to extend market dominance into other sectors.

lolinder 4y ago

> Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively. Indeed, the original purpose of anti-trust laws was to prevent trusts and cartels--multiple companies collectively fixing prices and ensuring that no new entrants can compete.

tzs 4y ago

> Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively Also, having a monopoly (even an absolution monopoly) does not automatically mean you are violating antitrust law. You had to do something anti-competitive to get that monopoly or be doing something anti-competitive to maintain it. The easiest way to think about it is that US antitrust law is about preventing monopolization, not about preventing monopolies.