4 ms·

Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as

Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.

shadowgovt 3y ago
"Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (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...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation. ... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Can you quote a case where "the competition sucks" was actually and succesfully used as a defense in the US? I don't disagree with anything you quoted -- it is abuse of a dominant position that is illegal (even in my country at the very least, which last time I checked was in the EU). Just note that it doesn't really matter if you got your monopoly because "the competition sucked" or not, just the fact that you have a dominant position, and you abused it. So I disagree with the conclusion. And let it be clear that all of this is an off-topic, since again the point was that MS is still using the same anti-competitive strategies they were using decades ago, to this day.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Emphasis mine: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." The American system recognizes the notion of proper monopoly; if one company is doing something very well and every other company lacks the tools or skill to do as well, that is not actionable. Using market dominance is also not, by itself, actionable ("Competition is a ruthless process" &c). What the US does consider actionable is consumer harm... undercutting your opponents' prices because you can isn't actionable by itself ("Hey, look at all that competition lowering prices! Consumers love low prices!"), but undercutting them unsustainably and then jacking the price later when you grind them out of business is. But you're right that we're having a two-ships-passing-in-the-night discussion on the topic now, because Europe takes a very different view upon this (protection of the marketplace, in the European history of antitrust, is protecting the right to make a living competing, not the consumers' right not to be screwed). Much of what I'm saying is in the American mindset, and reasonable people can disagree because reasonable people can come from different philsophical backgrounds on what constitutes protection-worthy antitrust behavior. (Linux, as example, in the American system it's hard to make the argument that MS being unwilling to spend the money to port software they own to another OS is consumer harm. It can be made though; I believe that's one of the reasons the FCC was blocking the MS / Activision merger. But it's right on the edge of a defendable argument, because the counter-argument is "Who cares if Word doesn't run on Ubuntu distros if OpenOffice is right there?").

shadowgovt 3y ago

"Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (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...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation. ... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Can you quote a case where "the competition sucks" was actually and succesfully used as a defense in the US? I don't disagree with anything you quoted -- it is abuse of a dominant position that is illegal (even in my country at the very least, which last time I checked was in the EU). Just note that it doesn't really matter if you got your monopoly because "the competition sucked" or not, just the fact that you have a dominant position, and you abused it. So I disagree with the conclusion. And let it be clear that all of this is an off-topic, since again the point was that MS is still using the same anti-competitive strategies they were using decades ago, to this day.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Emphasis mine: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." The American system recognizes the notion of proper monopoly; if one company is doing something very well and every other company lacks the tools or skill to do as well, that is not actionable. Using market dominance is also not, by itself, actionable ("Competition is a ruthless process" &c). What the US does consider actionable is consumer harm... undercutting your opponents' prices because you can isn't actionable by itself ("Hey, look at all that competition lowering prices! Consumers love low prices!"), but undercutting them unsustainably and then jacking the price later when you grind them out of business is. But you're right that we're having a two-ships-passing-in-the-night discussion on the topic now, because Europe takes a very different view upon this (protection of the marketplace, in the European history of antitrust, is protecting the right to make a living competing, not the consumers' right not to be screwed). Much of what I'm saying is in the American mindset, and reasonable people can disagree because reasonable people can come from different philsophical backgrounds on what constitutes protection-worthy antitrust behavior. (Linux, as example, in the American system it's hard to make the argument that MS being unwilling to spend the money to port software they own to another OS is consumer harm. It can be made though; I believe that's one of the reasons the FCC was blocking the MS / Activision merger. But it's right on the edge of a defendable argument, because the counter-argument is "Who cares if Word doesn't run on Ubuntu distros if OpenOffice is right there?").