3 ms·
not as antitrust laws are written, no. not a sherman section ii monopolization of trade or commerce, not a section i restraint of trade, not a clayton tying. as
by collegeburner 3y ago
not as antitrust laws are written, no. not a sherman section ii monopolization of trade or commerce, not a section i restraint of trade, not a clayton tying. as with most antitrust cases, it comes down to market definition. the reasonable market is phone messaging or some such; the only way to win would be basically defining the market as imessage itself which no court would suffer since whatsapp and similar are free with equal or greater features.
you can argue antitrust statute should be expanded or changed, but there's no reasonable case as things stand.
- int_19h 3y agoIt's not just the way they are written, it's also the way they are interpreted. Antitrust used to have a lot more teeth pre-Bork, among other things, because it was much more proactive in terms of anticipating negative effects on the market even before the company would become a glaringly obvious monopoly. Here's a case from 1962: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/. Note in particular the basis under which it was determined that the company in question is in a market-dominant position.