3 ms·

Both cases they're abusing market power in one category to compete unfairly in another market. Apparently this is called "monopolistic leveraging" and is a som

by jowea 3y ago

Both cases they're abusing market power in one category to compete unfairly in another market. Apparently this is called "monopolistic leveraging" and is a somewhat unsettled area of law in the US. [0][1] Here's another example. Amazon using its market power as an online marketplace to benefit in both the logistics market and its own-label goods market. [2] By not allowing anyone else to advertise on its front page, it could also be said that Google is practising "Refusal to deal", which is also forbidden, although I admit that case is somewhat weaker. [3] > Google does not force you to install Chrome in order to use Search. I believe that just means they aren't practising tying, which is yet another abuse of monopoly power. [0] https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [1] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=lawreview https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650 [3] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Here's another example. Amazon using its market power as an online marketplace to benefit in both the logistics market and its own-label goods market. [2] This is vastly different from advertising a product in the company website. Amazon got caught peeking into their own partners data, then leveraging that knowledge to unfairly compete with them. > By not allowing anyone else to advertise on its front page, it could also be said that Google is practising "Refusal to deal", which is also forbidden, although I admit that case is somewhat weaker. [3] Again, not the same. "Refusal to deal" means that Google would prohibit Microsoft from advertising Edge, their Chrome competitor, in their ad network, which is not happening. But it's worth noting that Microsoft does the same with Bing and Edge, displaying a modal if you are using any other browser. They also got caught displaying large banners in the Chrome download page, which I personally think is even worse [0] [0] https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-size-ads-on-chrome-website-to-make-you-stay-on-edge/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...
- jowea 3y ago
  I admit, the cases are different, and I may be more stating how I think it should be than what a court would decide. But yes, Microsoft is doing even worse now, because the government failed to act previously.

by jowea 3y ago

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> Here's another example. Amazon using its market power as an online marketplace to benefit in both the logistics market and its own-label goods market. [2] This is vastly different from advertising a product in the company website. Amazon got caught peeking into their own partners data, then leveraging that knowledge to unfairly compete with them. > By not allowing anyone else to advertise on its front page, it could also be said that Google is practising "Refusal to deal", which is also forbidden, although I admit that case is somewhat weaker. [3] Again, not the same. "Refusal to deal" means that Google would prohibit Microsoft from advertising Edge, their Chrome competitor, in their ad network, which is not happening. But it's worth noting that Microsoft does the same with Bing and Edge, displaying a modal if you are using any other browser. They also got caught displaying large banners in the Chrome download page, which I personally think is even worse [0] [0] https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-size-ads-on-chrome-website-to-make-you-stay-on-edge/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...

jowea 3y ago
I admit, the cases are different, and I may be more stating how I think it should be than what a court would decide. But yes, Microsoft is doing even worse now, because the government failed to act previously.