4 ms·

According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/arc

by onli 3y ago

According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. But sure, jury trial. And also US judges in this area are especially broken, with their warped understanding of when a monopoly is harmful. --- Of course the other part of this is stupid as well. It should be illegal to have a monopoly, and it's the job of the government to break monopolies to enable competition. The US has it completely backwards here, and this is a big reason why that country is failing in key areas of economic development and infrastructure.

kmeisthax 3y ago
The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
  - baq 3y ago
    Not sure how you reconcile (il)legality of something with libertarianism - by definition bullying is legal there?
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      I mean that without IP laws, a whole lot of things become a lot harder to bully smaller companies with.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Mafia foes not need legal tactics
- jgilias 3y ago
  Thanks for the footnotes, made my day! :lol:
- justinclift 3y ago
  > South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. Some parts of that infrastructure seem to be having serious problems now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This is not really what the courts said (and to my knowledge the people who said it weren't members of the Libertarian Party or Austrian Economists). The actual quote from the Supreme Court is, "It is competition, not competitors, which the Act protects." The idea here is that, for example, if Walmart can undercut you on price and you go out of business, that's harm to competitors but not competition, because Walmart is only able to do that by offering the same product for a lower price. They can only do it by competing, and only for as long as they continue to outcompete the alternatives. As soon as they tried to raise prices or reduce quality, competitors could spring up to take the market from them. That isn't what Apple is doing. If you want to offer an app store for iOS that only takes a 5% cut, Apple will actively interfere with you -- and then they take a larger cut despite the existence of prospective competitors willing to take less. That's not consumers choosing the incumbent because they're the most competitive, it's the incumbent preventing consumers from having a choice. It's harm to competition.
laserlight 3y ago
> Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. I don't think that's stupid. Blocking access using code is an honest act. Everyone knows the rules and can build their business accordingly. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is manipulative. It gives the impression that the platform is open to competition, when it isn't.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Blocking access using guns is an honest act. Everyone knows the rules and can build their business accordingly. Therefore, I support the Mexican drug cartels

by onli 3y ago

kmeisthax 3y ago

The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]

rpmisms 3y ago
Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
- baq 3y ago
  Not sure how you reconcile (il)legality of something with libertarianism - by definition bullying is legal there?
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    I mean that without IP laws, a whole lot of things become a lot harder to bully smaller companies with.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Mafia foes not need legal tactics
jgilias 3y ago
Thanks for the footnotes, made my day! :lol:
justinclift 3y ago
> South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. Some parts of that infrastructure seem to be having serious problems now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This is not really what the courts said (and to my knowledge the people who said it weren't members of the Libertarian Party or Austrian Economists). The actual quote from the Supreme Court is, "It is competition, not competitors, which the Act protects." The idea here is that, for example, if Walmart can undercut you on price and you go out of business, that's harm to competitors but not competition, because Walmart is only able to do that by offering the same product for a lower price. They can only do it by competing, and only for as long as they continue to outcompete the alternatives. As soon as they tried to raise prices or reduce quality, competitors could spring up to take the market from them. That isn't what Apple is doing. If you want to offer an app store for iOS that only takes a 5% cut, Apple will actively interfere with you -- and then they take a larger cut despite the existence of prospective competitors willing to take less. That's not consumers choosing the incumbent because they're the most competitive, it's the incumbent preventing consumers from having a choice. It's harm to competition.

laserlight 3y ago

> Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. I don't think that's stupid. Blocking access using code is an honest act. Everyone knows the rules and can build their business accordingly. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is manipulative. It gives the impression that the platform is open to competition, when it isn't.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Blocking access using guns is an honest act. Everyone knows the rules and can build their business accordingly. Therefore, I support the Mexican drug cartels