5 ms·

> Google indisputably has a monopoly over web search: ~93% market share. (I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this.) You seem to be unde

> Google indisputably has a monopoly over web search: ~93% market share. (I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this.) You seem to be under the misconception that it is illegal for Google to possess a monopoly over web search. This is not the case. It is only illegal if such a monopoly was obtained or maintained via anticompetitive means. If the monopoly was obtained via "growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident", then it is entirely legal. Source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... Moreover, the government has done something about it when Google tried to use their monopoly over web search to obtain a monopoly in other markets via anticompetitive means.

lapcat 3y ago
> You seem to be under the misconception that it is illegal for Google to possess a monopoly over web search. This is not the case. It is only illegal if such a monopoly was obtained or maintained via anticompetitive means. I said, "And the craziest part is, our so-called antitrust laws allow Google to pay Apple $billions per year to be the default search engine in Safari. The duopolists openly conspiring." But you chose to completely ignore that and accuse me of misconception. I also mentioned several anticompetitive practices in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35695705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35695705 > Moreover, the government has done something about it when Google tried to use their monopoly over web search to obtain a monopoly in other markets via anticompetitive means. What have they done?
- nodamage 3y ago
  You said: "I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this." But nothing you've described is necessarily illegal so I think my point about your misconception stands. It might be anticompetitive (in your opinion) but that does not mean it is actually a violation of the law.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    "necessarily illegal"? So... it might be illegal? You didn't answer my question: "What have they done?"
    - nodamage 3y ago
      > "necessarily illegal"? So... it might be illegal? That will depend on the outcome of the several current ongoing lawsuits and has not been established at this stage. I mean, just look at this case. A lot of people decided what Apple was doing was illegal after Epic filed suit and it turned out they were wrong. > You didn't answer my question: "What have they done?" https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop... and https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/colorado-et-al-v-google-no-130-cv-03715-d-d-c-dec-17-2020/ https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/colorado-et-al-v-google...
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > and it turned out they were wrong. I don't think there's much "right and wrong" in the court system. There's so much arbitrariness and even politicalization among judges. Just look at the Supreme Court. The judge in the Epic trial, YGR, invented a whole new market concept out of thin air, "digital mobile gaming transactions", a market that neither side in the case argued for. I thought that was complete crap and a bad decision. What's the legal basis for a judge inventing a market? This seems like a classic case of judicial overreach. One of the weirdest things about that market definition is that the App Store is not a game store. Of course there are a lot of games that make a lot of money in the App Store, but there are a ton of non-games in there too. (Also, WTF is "digital" supposed to mean? Are there analog mobile gaming transactions?) I also thought, to be honest, that Epic's lawyers in the case were not great and seemed not fully prepared or technically knowledgeable. And some of the toughest questions for Apple were asked by YGR rather than by Epic. > https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop... "Entering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search tools." That was precisely my complaint! So if I have a misconception, then apparently the Department of Justice also has the same misconception.

lapcat 3y ago

> You seem to be under the misconception that it is illegal for Google to possess a monopoly over web search. This is not the case. It is only illegal if such a monopoly was obtained or maintained via anticompetitive means. I said, "And the craziest part is, our so-called antitrust laws allow Google to pay Apple $billions per year to be the default search engine in Safari. The duopolists openly conspiring." But you chose to completely ignore that and accuse me of misconception. I also mentioned several anticompetitive practices in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35695705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35695705 > Moreover, the government has done something about it when Google tried to use their monopoly over web search to obtain a monopoly in other markets via anticompetitive means. What have they done?

nodamage 3y ago
You said: "I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this." But nothing you've described is necessarily illegal so I think my point about your misconception stands. It might be anticompetitive (in your opinion) but that does not mean it is actually a violation of the law.
- lapcat 3y ago
  "necessarily illegal"? So... it might be illegal? You didn't answer my question: "What have they done?"
  - nodamage 3y ago
    > "necessarily illegal"? So... it might be illegal? That will depend on the outcome of the several current ongoing lawsuits and has not been established at this stage. I mean, just look at this case. A lot of people decided what Apple was doing was illegal after Epic filed suit and it turned out they were wrong. > You didn't answer my question: "What have they done?" https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop... and https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/colorado-et-al-v-google-no-130-cv-03715-d-d-c-dec-17-2020/ https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/colorado-et-al-v-google...
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > and it turned out they were wrong. I don't think there's much "right and wrong" in the court system. There's so much arbitrariness and even politicalization among judges. Just look at the Supreme Court. The judge in the Epic trial, YGR, invented a whole new market concept out of thin air, "digital mobile gaming transactions", a market that neither side in the case argued for. I thought that was complete crap and a bad decision. What's the legal basis for a judge inventing a market? This seems like a classic case of judicial overreach. One of the weirdest things about that market definition is that the App Store is not a game store. Of course there are a lot of games that make a lot of money in the App Store, but there are a ton of non-games in there too. (Also, WTF is "digital" supposed to mean? Are there analog mobile gaming transactions?) I also thought, to be honest, that Epic's lawyers in the case were not great and seemed not fully prepared or technically knowledgeable. And some of the toughest questions for Apple were asked by YGR rather than by Epic. > https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop... "Entering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search tools." That was precisely my complaint! So if I have a misconception, then apparently the Department of Justice also has the same misconception.