3 ms·

The cynic in me says it's because this way they can say "we tried" and not actually do anything. Antitrust lawsuits died the day MS got a slap on the wrist, an

The cynic in me says it's because this way they can say "we tried" and not actually do anything. Antitrust lawsuits died the day MS got a slap on the wrist, and we've been paying for it as a society ever since. I really doubt the authenticity of this effort, but I also lack the expertise to judge properly so maybe I shouldn't be so pessimistic.

likpok 3y ago
I don't think it's the cynical take, the current FTC chair seriously believes that the FTC should be doing more antitrust enforcement and the paper that got her noticed specifically called out Amazon (IIRC the amazon/diapers.com conflict). She runs into challenges because she has a somewhat novel theory of antitrust. This causes conflict between the long-standing staffers (who both want to win cases and seem to dislike the new direction) and with judges (who don't seem to be buying her theories).
- CPLX 3y ago
  Her theory of antitrust goes back 100+ years. It’s that there should be robust competition and when firms get too large and powerful they should be broken up. The alternate theory is the novel one. That theory basically sums up to “no we shouldn’t” and also “after a few years in public service I am happy to announce I have taken a role at a large monopolistic company and can now afford a summer home.” For more info read this book: https://mattstoller.com/ https://mattstoller.com/
  - grogenaut 3y ago
    Are using novel as in newer or novel as in different than widely considered at current?
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    The current standard is "consumer harm" with lower prices considered per-se evidence to the contrary. The issue here is monopsony rather than monopoly because Amazon is fantastic for consumers but Terrible for sellers because there is effectively a single online market to sell in owned by Amazon. My worry would be a feedback loop giving Amazon increasing dominance due to this effect, and would like to see both vertical integration and Monopsony more heavily scrutinized, but this lawsuit seems to target a feature with an objective benefit to consumers given Amazon's amazing shipping and return policy.
HWR_14 3y ago
> the day MS got a slap on the wrist That "slap on the wrist" was sufficient to prevent MS from owning the browser.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  Only just, and more because of their continued incompetence in that area with IE. They were going to actually break the company apart into different divisions to stop the vertical monopoly, but instead that's just become standard.
- chung8123 3y ago
  It prevented a lot more than that. They were not able to bundle software where Apple was able to include many things by default.

likpok 3y ago

I don't think it's the cynical take, the current FTC chair seriously believes that the FTC should be doing more antitrust enforcement and the paper that got her noticed specifically called out Amazon (IIRC the amazon/diapers.com conflict). She runs into challenges because she has a somewhat novel theory of antitrust. This causes conflict between the long-standing staffers (who both want to win cases and seem to dislike the new direction) and with judges (who don't seem to be buying her theories).

CPLX 3y ago
Her theory of antitrust goes back 100+ years. It’s that there should be robust competition and when firms get too large and powerful they should be broken up. The alternate theory is the novel one. That theory basically sums up to “no we shouldn’t” and also “after a few years in public service I am happy to announce I have taken a role at a large monopolistic company and can now afford a summer home.” For more info read this book: https://mattstoller.com/ https://mattstoller.com/
- grogenaut 3y ago
  Are using novel as in newer or novel as in different than widely considered at current?
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  The current standard is "consumer harm" with lower prices considered per-se evidence to the contrary. The issue here is monopsony rather than monopoly because Amazon is fantastic for consumers but Terrible for sellers because there is effectively a single online market to sell in owned by Amazon. My worry would be a feedback loop giving Amazon increasing dominance due to this effect, and would like to see both vertical integration and Monopsony more heavily scrutinized, but this lawsuit seems to target a feature with an objective benefit to consumers given Amazon's amazing shipping and return policy.

HWR_14 3y ago

> the day MS got a slap on the wrist That "slap on the wrist" was sufficient to prevent MS from owning the browser.

Eji1700 3y ago
Only just, and more because of their continued incompetence in that area with IE. They were going to actually break the company apart into different divisions to stop the vertical monopoly, but instead that's just become standard.
chung8123 3y ago
It prevented a lot more than that. They were not able to bundle software where Apple was able to include many things by default.