3 ms·

> The best example of her failure was the blizzard acquisition where she spent most of her time talking about Sony, and not consumer welfare. That's what I mea

> The best example of her failure was the blizzard acquisition where she spent most of her time talking about Sony, and not consumer welfare. That's what I mean though - the consumer welfare standard is terrible and essentially designed to kill antitrust enforcement in the US. It takes time to change the tide - the consumer welfare standard took 20 years to become fully accepted as the proper standard for enforcement (or non-enforcement, as it were). She needs to keep banging the drum for competitive markets - it's not sufficient for Microsoft to promise to not act anticompetitively - they should not be allowed to have that power at all. "Consumer welfare" (whatever that actually means in this case) is irrelevant. The above standard also has the benefit of being enforceable, unlike the current, nebulous standard that is too easy to satisfy.

stale2002 3y ago
> The above standard also has the benefit of being enforceable, unlike the current, nebulous standard that is too easy to satisfy. Making bad arguments in court isn't the way to make effective anti-trust change. You can't just will your ideas into existence. Either make a new law, or make arguments in court that will actually work. Or I guess keep wasting time, not being effective. Thats what she's chosen I guess. > "Consumer welfare" (whatever that actually means in this case) Its actually very well defined by the courts. It has been the fundamental basis for anti-trust law for decades. Its mostly about whatever causes lower prices. The fact that it is well defined, I think is part of the reason why some people don't like it. Because they can't get around the very straightforward measurement of if prices are going down or not.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  > You can't just will your ideas into existence. Either make a new law, or make arguments in court that will actually work. Robert Bork would be shocked to hear you say that. Show me the act of Congress that established the consumer welfare standard. Its not hard to imagine that arguing “market concentration is bad as a rule” will eventually find a friendly judge if you try a few times. The laws, as written, support that very line of argument. > The fact that it is well defined, I think is part of the reason why some people don't like it. Because they can't get around the very straightforward measurement of if prices are going down or not. Some people don’t like it because the math very rarely works as described, acquiring companies often lie, and we have ample proof that it has substantially increased market concentration, avoiding which is entire point of antitrust laws.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Robert Bork would be shocked to hear you say that. I think that's the first time I’ve heard a hypothetical negative response by Bork invoked as if it constitute an argument against the position supposed to trigger that hypothetical response.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Show me the act of Congress that established the consumer welfare standard. I don't need to. Because this is how the courts are interpreting the law. Make a new one if you don't like it, because bad arguments in court don't change anything. > will eventually find a friendly judge Someone might be able to find a single one, somewhere in the entire USA. But the interpretations of a single judge means very little. If a single judge deviates from the current court standard in a significant way, then the ruling would almost certainly of be overturned upon appeal. One judge changes very little. and I don't think the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court is going to change anytime soon.
    - arrosenberg 3y ago
      > I don't need to. Because this is how the courts are interpreting the law. Make a new one if you don't like it, because bad arguments in court don't change anything. Her arguments comport with the law and its actual intent, how is that a bad argument? I just don’t find your appeal to authority all that compelling, since the consumer welfare standard is a court-created fiction itself, no one “created a new law” to make the courts do that, why would she be held to a different standard than Bork?
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > Her arguments comport with the law No it doesn't. Because that's not what the courts say. And the court system isn't changing anytime soon. > I just don’t find your appeal to authority The courts are quite literally the authority. By definition. They decide. If you don't like it then change the law, get a new court system (hint: this is not very likely), or overthrow the government in a literal revolution. Those are your only 3 options. Complaining about it, or even worse, wasting the court's time with arguments that aren't going to work is worthless and instead a harmful waste of resources. > is a court-created fiction itself All laws are fiction created by people. "The law" is just another way of saying "words written on a piece of paper". The words on the piece of paper are indeed nothing more than fiction. What matters, instead, is how those words are interpreted, used, and enforced by people. Nothing more. Welcome to living in a society. > how is that a bad argument? It is a bad argument because it failed in the court system and will continue to fail. It will fail for decades to come. It will keep failing until the law changes, the courts change their mind (unlikely... 6-3 conservative majority in the supreme court, for decades to come) or the actual revolution happens.

stale2002 3y ago

> The above standard also has the benefit of being enforceable, unlike the current, nebulous standard that is too easy to satisfy. Making bad arguments in court isn't the way to make effective anti-trust change. You can't just will your ideas into existence. Either make a new law, or make arguments in court that will actually work. Or I guess keep wasting time, not being effective. Thats what she's chosen I guess. > "Consumer welfare" (whatever that actually means in this case) Its actually very well defined by the courts. It has been the fundamental basis for anti-trust law for decades. Its mostly about whatever causes lower prices. The fact that it is well defined, I think is part of the reason why some people don't like it. Because they can't get around the very straightforward measurement of if prices are going down or not.

arrosenberg 3y ago
> You can't just will your ideas into existence. Either make a new law, or make arguments in court that will actually work. Robert Bork would be shocked to hear you say that. Show me the act of Congress that established the consumer welfare standard. Its not hard to imagine that arguing “market concentration is bad as a rule” will eventually find a friendly judge if you try a few times. The laws, as written, support that very line of argument. > The fact that it is well defined, I think is part of the reason why some people don't like it. Because they can't get around the very straightforward measurement of if prices are going down or not. Some people don’t like it because the math very rarely works as described, acquiring companies often lie, and we have ample proof that it has substantially increased market concentration, avoiding which is entire point of antitrust laws.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Robert Bork would be shocked to hear you say that. I think that's the first time I’ve heard a hypothetical negative response by Bork invoked as if it constitute an argument against the position supposed to trigger that hypothetical response.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Show me the act of Congress that established the consumer welfare standard. I don't need to. Because this is how the courts are interpreting the law. Make a new one if you don't like it, because bad arguments in court don't change anything. > will eventually find a friendly judge Someone might be able to find a single one, somewhere in the entire USA. But the interpretations of a single judge means very little. If a single judge deviates from the current court standard in a significant way, then the ruling would almost certainly of be overturned upon appeal. One judge changes very little. and I don't think the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court is going to change anytime soon.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    > I don't need to. Because this is how the courts are interpreting the law. Make a new one if you don't like it, because bad arguments in court don't change anything. Her arguments comport with the law and its actual intent, how is that a bad argument? I just don’t find your appeal to authority all that compelling, since the consumer welfare standard is a court-created fiction itself, no one “created a new law” to make the courts do that, why would she be held to a different standard than Bork?
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Her arguments comport with the law No it doesn't. Because that's not what the courts say. And the court system isn't changing anytime soon. > I just don’t find your appeal to authority The courts are quite literally the authority. By definition. They decide. If you don't like it then change the law, get a new court system (hint: this is not very likely), or overthrow the government in a literal revolution. Those are your only 3 options. Complaining about it, or even worse, wasting the court's time with arguments that aren't going to work is worthless and instead a harmful waste of resources. > is a court-created fiction itself All laws are fiction created by people. "The law" is just another way of saying "words written on a piece of paper". The words on the piece of paper are indeed nothing more than fiction. What matters, instead, is how those words are interpreted, used, and enforced by people. Nothing more. Welcome to living in a society. > how is that a bad argument? It is a bad argument because it failed in the court system and will continue to fail. It will fail for decades to come. It will keep failing until the law changes, the courts change their mind (unlikely... 6-3 conservative majority in the supreme court, for decades to come) or the actual revolution happens.