4 ms·

I'm not saying they all need to be addressed at once. But they should be addressed close together otherwise it's just the government picking market winners. Tec

I'm not saying they all need to be addressed at once. But they should be addressed close together otherwise it's just the government picking market winners. Technology moves fast. If you force Google to reorg and then it takes 5 years to bring more antitrust action I'm not sure you've actually improved anything.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
I agree, but it could be that they need to focus all their resources to take on google with any chance of success. It could also very well be that the other big companies alter their behavior in response to the now real threat of anti-trust enforcement.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  "I agree, but it could be that they need to focus all their resources to take on google with any chance of success." Why? What does this even mean? I have no idea what it means to "focus all their resources" or why it's important. The antitrust division of the DOJ alone has 380 attorneys (900 people total), and that is before you get into the fact that they also will contract with outside firms, etc. This is 10x the size of the average large law firm's entire antitrust practice area. Probably 20x a lot of the time. They can easily run multiple large tech cases at once. FTC is 2x as large (it has 750 attorneys total) "It could also very well be that the other big companies alter their behavior in response to the now real threat of anti-trust enforcement." This didn't happen at all when MS was taken out. Or AT&T Or ... So this seems like a pipe dream.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    Are you suggesting all these staff are just sitting idly and doing nothing? Or could it be they have these large staffs because there is a whole lot of lawyering to do on a day to day basis keeping these agencies running for a country with 300+ million people.
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      Again, what does this even mean? Your claim was that they need to "focus their resources" and can't possibly handle multiple large tech cases at once. You still haven't explained what that means, at all. I pointed out they have tons of resources, even comparing it to the practices of large law firms that handle many large cases at once. Now you are arguing they are doing something, but apparently not handling multiple large tech cases since you think they are incapable of doing that, but that there is some weird "day to day" that involves a significant mass of attorneys that they are all doing instead that is somehow "keeping the agencies running", and cite the size of the population of the US as if that has literally any relevance to anything. This is all totally odd, since it's the 520 other people that keep the DOJ ATR running, not the lawyers. That's literally their job. The FTC also has a large support staff aside from the 780 attorneys. What i take away from all of this is: 1. You have no idea what they do or how they operate. 2. You don't want to admit that they in fact, have plenty of resources to operate multiple tech cases at once, and are repeatedly deflecting because you have no basis to assert otherwise. To wit - here's a fun fact that, uh, slightly damages your argument, FWIW - they've made multiple public comments and statements (to congress even!) that they believe they have what they need to handle multiple simultaneous large tech cases. It's in fact, why they staffed up over the past few years, adding hundreds of attorneys. So they don't even think you are right. Only you do. You would know this, of course, if you actually bothered to try to look at or understand any of the data/statements/etc around the FTC or DOJ, rather than just randomly asserting things. You would also know that the DOJ/FTC break down what percent of their support is focused on what (including sustaining operations), for example, and since it's not a very large percent, you wouldn't try to make a silly argument that they are understaffed to handle it because of that. 3. You aren't willing to engage in a discussion where you back up any point you make with any data. Given #3, this is pointless. It's not worth trying to discuss this with someone who just asserts things based on their random opinions, and just changes their argument when they realize someone is pushing back on their silliness and giving real data. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, bring facts. Otherwise, it's just people asserting their own personal gut feelings on the internet, which is not particularly interesting to discuss. Have a good one.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

I agree, but it could be that they need to focus all their resources to take on google with any chance of success. It could also very well be that the other big companies alter their behavior in response to the now real threat of anti-trust enforcement.

DannyBee 3y ago
"I agree, but it could be that they need to focus all their resources to take on google with any chance of success." Why? What does this even mean? I have no idea what it means to "focus all their resources" or why it's important. The antitrust division of the DOJ alone has 380 attorneys (900 people total), and that is before you get into the fact that they also will contract with outside firms, etc. This is 10x the size of the average large law firm's entire antitrust practice area. Probably 20x a lot of the time. They can easily run multiple large tech cases at once. FTC is 2x as large (it has 750 attorneys total) "It could also very well be that the other big companies alter their behavior in response to the now real threat of anti-trust enforcement." This didn't happen at all when MS was taken out. Or AT&T Or ... So this seems like a pipe dream.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  Are you suggesting all these staff are just sitting idly and doing nothing? Or could it be they have these large staffs because there is a whole lot of lawyering to do on a day to day basis keeping these agencies running for a country with 300+ million people.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    Again, what does this even mean? Your claim was that they need to "focus their resources" and can't possibly handle multiple large tech cases at once. You still haven't explained what that means, at all. I pointed out they have tons of resources, even comparing it to the practices of large law firms that handle many large cases at once. Now you are arguing they are doing something, but apparently not handling multiple large tech cases since you think they are incapable of doing that, but that there is some weird "day to day" that involves a significant mass of attorneys that they are all doing instead that is somehow "keeping the agencies running", and cite the size of the population of the US as if that has literally any relevance to anything. This is all totally odd, since it's the 520 other people that keep the DOJ ATR running, not the lawyers. That's literally their job. The FTC also has a large support staff aside from the 780 attorneys. What i take away from all of this is: 1. You have no idea what they do or how they operate. 2. You don't want to admit that they in fact, have plenty of resources to operate multiple tech cases at once, and are repeatedly deflecting because you have no basis to assert otherwise. To wit - here's a fun fact that, uh, slightly damages your argument, FWIW - they've made multiple public comments and statements (to congress even!) that they believe they have what they need to handle multiple simultaneous large tech cases. It's in fact, why they staffed up over the past few years, adding hundreds of attorneys. So they don't even think you are right. Only you do. You would know this, of course, if you actually bothered to try to look at or understand any of the data/statements/etc around the FTC or DOJ, rather than just randomly asserting things. You would also know that the DOJ/FTC break down what percent of their support is focused on what (including sustaining operations), for example, and since it's not a very large percent, you wouldn't try to make a silly argument that they are understaffed to handle it because of that. 3. You aren't willing to engage in a discussion where you back up any point you make with any data. Given #3, this is pointless. It's not worth trying to discuss this with someone who just asserts things based on their random opinions, and just changes their argument when they realize someone is pushing back on their silliness and giving real data. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, bring facts. Otherwise, it's just people asserting their own personal gut feelings on the internet, which is not particularly interesting to discuss. Have a good one.