3 ms·

What examples of major companies that the DOJ has lit into? AFAIK, the last company they broke up was AT&T, 40 years ago.

tptacek 3y ago
Microsoft is the obvious example. The DOJ didn't break them up, but they ended up operating under a consent decree that significantly impacted them over the 2000s and 2010s. I'm aware (through the grapevine) of straightforward product decisions Google would have but didn't make for fear of ending up in the same position. Keep in mind the argument I'm responding to here: the idea that large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational. It's not enough to claim that the Microsoft case didn't break up or hobble Microsoft. By Rayiner's logic, Microsoft should have simply reincorporated in Ireland or Belize or something and continued its domination of computing. They did not. They didn't because Rayiner's argument is wrong.
- leereeves 3y ago
  I haven't seen anyone argue that "large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational". Rayiner claimed merely that: > the US only has jurisdiction over these companies to the extent that it’s a big market. But in that sense domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large US presence. Surely you'd agree that large US corporations are not meaningfully European, and yet they are also subject to EU law. That's how we ended up with cookie warnings on everything and the current fight over alternative app stores on iPhones. In particular, the latter example is the EU enforcing a version of antitrust law on US companies. That shows that "[EU] domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large [EU] presence." I can't think of an example of it happening the other way around, but I think that's mostly because US law is much more permissive than EU law. --- Edit because I'm "posting too fast": This didn't refer to "enforces US antitrust law". It referred to "USG breaks one up". That hasn't happened in so long we have no idea what a modern multinational corporation might do in response. I agree "will" overstates the claim.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    If the EU can effectively enforce EU antitrust law on a company, that company is in fact bound by EU law, and is not (for a variety of reasons) in a position to flee to a more hospitable jurisdiction to work around EU law, which is exactly the thing Rayiner is claiming multinational companies do as a matter of course. This isn't complicated: he made what seems to be a flatly broken argument. I think you're mostly just stumbling over how bad the argument is. To recap, he said: * "Trans-national corporations like Facebook are not meaningfully domestic.", and * "If the US does that [enforces US antitrust law], these companies will reincorporate somewhere else and the founders and executives will go live there instead" Note the unambiguous "will", describing something that appears to be completely without precedent in the history of major US corporations.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > Keep in mind the argument I'm responding to here: the idea that large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational. I didn’t say they were insulated from US law. Anyone who does business here is subject to US law, whether they are a US company or a foreign company. What I said was that they are not meaningfully distinguishable from foreign actors for purposes of judging their attempts to influence elections. They are at best amoral, and I think in reality most are run by a class of people who think nationality is obsolete.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That's not what you said. You said that if the US attempted to enforce US law on a multinational US company, that company would reincorporate somewhere outside of US jurisdiction. Obviously, no.

tptacek 3y ago

Microsoft is the obvious example. The DOJ didn't break them up, but they ended up operating under a consent decree that significantly impacted them over the 2000s and 2010s. I'm aware (through the grapevine) of straightforward product decisions Google would have but didn't make for fear of ending up in the same position. Keep in mind the argument I'm responding to here: the idea that large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational. It's not enough to claim that the Microsoft case didn't break up or hobble Microsoft. By Rayiner's logic, Microsoft should have simply reincorporated in Ireland or Belize or something and continued its domination of computing. They did not. They didn't because Rayiner's argument is wrong.

leereeves 3y ago
I haven't seen anyone argue that "large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational". Rayiner claimed merely that: > the US only has jurisdiction over these companies to the extent that it’s a big market. But in that sense domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large US presence. Surely you'd agree that large US corporations are not meaningfully European, and yet they are also subject to EU law. That's how we ended up with cookie warnings on everything and the current fight over alternative app stores on iPhones. In particular, the latter example is the EU enforcing a version of antitrust law on US companies. That shows that "[EU] domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large [EU] presence." I can't think of an example of it happening the other way around, but I think that's mostly because US law is much more permissive than EU law. --- Edit because I'm "posting too fast": This didn't refer to "enforces US antitrust law". It referred to "USG breaks one up". That hasn't happened in so long we have no idea what a modern multinational corporation might do in response. I agree "will" overstates the claim.
- tptacek 3y ago
  If the EU can effectively enforce EU antitrust law on a company, that company is in fact bound by EU law, and is not (for a variety of reasons) in a position to flee to a more hospitable jurisdiction to work around EU law, which is exactly the thing Rayiner is claiming multinational companies do as a matter of course. This isn't complicated: he made what seems to be a flatly broken argument. I think you're mostly just stumbling over how bad the argument is. To recap, he said: * "Trans-national corporations like Facebook are not meaningfully domestic.", and * "If the US does that [enforces US antitrust law], these companies will reincorporate somewhere else and the founders and executives will go live there instead" Note the unambiguous "will", describing something that appears to be completely without precedent in the history of major US corporations.
rayiner 3y ago
> Keep in mind the argument I'm responding to here: the idea that large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational. I didn’t say they were insulated from US law. Anyone who does business here is subject to US law, whether they are a US company or a foreign company. What I said was that they are not meaningfully distinguishable from foreign actors for purposes of judging their attempts to influence elections. They are at best amoral, and I think in reality most are run by a class of people who think nationality is obsolete.
- tptacek 3y ago
  That's not what you said. You said that if the US attempted to enforce US law on a multinational US company, that company would reincorporate somewhere outside of US jurisdiction. Obviously, no.