4 ms·

The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public,

The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

CPLX 3y ago
For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.
- whiddershins 3y ago
  The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business. They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The other view is that you shouldn't wait until the consumer is harmed, because by then the competition might be so weak it's hard to restore to proper levels.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    That’s not true. The government also cares if firms engage in illegal anti competitive behavior. The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.
jpadkins 3y ago
roughly: In the US, the state has to prove consumer harm. In the EU, the state has to prove competitor harm.
- CPLX 3y ago
  No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.
  - whiddershins 3y ago
    I think you are correct, the harm is assumed.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    The plain language of the statute doesn't matter much once legal precedent is entrenched. This is especially true when the plain language is incredibly underspecified. For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs). > Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court. > Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-tr... If we strip out the penalties, the words defining what's illegal are literally just "contract, ...trust..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce". Given that ambiguity, it's inevitable that courts will essentially have to write the law themselves.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hackernewds 3y ago
Exactly. The point of an antitrust trial is not to transfer power and resources to competitors. It's to transfer power and resources to the voting public. As guilty as Microsoft might be, it's rich of Microsoft with its monopolies (without which a lot of its subpar products like outlook and Teams and Edge would go poof) to be abdicating Google here.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It's not about transferring resources. It's about making sure there's enough competition. Ironically, there is more and more search competition appearing. Bing isn't great, but other things are.
  - jfoster 3y ago
    Could you please elaborate on what the other things are?
    - ehecatl42 3y ago
      Have a play with mojeek.com. Also heard good things about kagi, that is paid, though, I believe.
    - omnimus 3y ago
      Probably Kagi… maybe chatgpt
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I use DDG exclusively and have done for years.
      - JopV 3y ago
        DuckDuckGo is just a proxy for Bing, the results are the same. Kagi and Brave are actual competitors.
        3y ago
madeofpalk 3y ago
Right - and that's why the Government, representing the public, are suing. Microsoft is just a "witness" to the public being victims.
dredmorbius 3y ago
That is the Bork doctrine, which itself was radical revisionism of the actual original US antitrust statutes. Rebecca Giblin & Cory Doctorow's Chokepoint Capitalism goes into detail on this.

The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

CPLX 3y ago

For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.

whiddershins 3y ago
The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business. They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The other view is that you shouldn't wait until the consumer is harmed, because by then the competition might be so weak it's hard to restore to proper levels.
- CPLX 3y ago
  That’s not true. The government also cares if firms engage in illegal anti competitive behavior. The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.

jpadkins 3y ago

roughly: In the US, the state has to prove consumer harm. In the EU, the state has to prove competitor harm.

CPLX 3y ago
No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.
- whiddershins 3y ago
  I think you are correct, the harm is assumed.
- jessriedel 3y ago
  The plain language of the statute doesn't matter much once legal precedent is entrenched. This is especially true when the plain language is incredibly underspecified. For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs). > Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court. > Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-tr... If we strip out the penalties, the words defining what's illegal are literally just "contract, ...trust..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce". Given that ambiguity, it's inevitable that courts will essentially have to write the law themselves.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hackernewds 3y ago

Exactly. The point of an antitrust trial is not to transfer power and resources to competitors. It's to transfer power and resources to the voting public. As guilty as Microsoft might be, it's rich of Microsoft with its monopolies (without which a lot of its subpar products like outlook and Teams and Edge would go poof) to be abdicating Google here.

robertlagrant 3y ago
It's not about transferring resources. It's about making sure there's enough competition. Ironically, there is more and more search competition appearing. Bing isn't great, but other things are.
- jfoster 3y ago
  Could you please elaborate on what the other things are?
  - ehecatl42 3y ago
    Have a play with mojeek.com. Also heard good things about kagi, that is paid, though, I believe.
  - omnimus 3y ago
    Probably Kagi… maybe chatgpt
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I use DDG exclusively and have done for years.
    - JopV 3y ago
      DuckDuckGo is just a proxy for Bing, the results are the same. Kagi and Brave are actual competitors.
      - 3y ago

madeofpalk 3y ago

Right - and that's why the Government, representing the public, are suing. Microsoft is just a "witness" to the public being victims.

dredmorbius 3y ago

That is the Bork doctrine, which itself was radical revisionism of the actual original US antitrust statutes. Rebecca Giblin & Cory Doctorow's Chokepoint Capitalism goes into detail on this.