4 ms·
Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Of
by kurthr 3y ago
Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Of course this can't happen in India, because there would be political repercussions unless it was was an Indian firm connected to the government.
To change this takes real political will and a recognition of who the beneficiaries of the current systems are. It's not simple in any remotely democratic system with rule of law.
We do have the FTC which can enforce antitrust (when the executive branch doesn't interfere) and force various requirements (like the auctioning of ad terms be separated from the business of marketing ads, and the collection of search data) on different parts of the company.
(edit: Oops, I must remember to only discuss US politics with any realism. Reference to any other country's corruption/politics must only be with the highest reverence, deference, and awe.)
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Right, because a judge would look at a company holding the same market through subsidiaries and not throw the book at them. IANAL, but AFAICT the wording in the law doesn't even distinguish one company vs a group acting together; why would that make a difference?
- kurthr 3y agoThe law in India that this was a direct response to... or the FTC's case in the US? I'd answer those two questions differently, but I think you're referring to something I wasn't.