3 ms·

We need all new definitions of what a monopoly is, instead of the ones we have in law. The current definitions let everything drag out for years in courts by se

We need all new definitions of what a monopoly is, instead of the ones we have in law. The current definitions let everything drag out for years in courts by setting too high a bar. Instead, we need to recognize that all companies above a certain size or even “medium” market share damage competition simply due to their size. There shouldn’t be tests like proof of consumer harm, which is often hard or impossible to prove. Companies should also not be allowed to define the type of service they are, since they use overly broad market segments to make themselves look small. Their market capitalization or revenue or profit should be enough evidence of a problem. We know that big incumbents can copy smaller players, fight expensive legal battles, loss lead, bundle products, and behave in other anti competitive ways. Their size is a problem on its own. A healthy society needs to have fair competition and reasonably distributed power. What we have right now with trillion Dollar megacorps (by market cap) is not healthy.

ethbr1 2y ago
The problem was created by globalization. Previously, companies could only grow so big. Now with a worldwide addressable market, that's increased substantially. I'd love to see US antitrust law recast as a series of increasing restrictions. No need to make it binary. If you exceed this threshold, these are the requirements you're held to... If you exceed this next threshold, these are the additional requirements... The root issue is that extremely large companies are held to the same rules as much smaller companies, while having access to resources that alone create monopoly concerns. And, IMHO, Godzilla-style "find a big monster to fight the big monster" regulation isn't a healthy approach to creating competition. Much better to increase competition restrictions with company size.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > The root issue is that extremely large companies are held to the same rules as much smaller companies, while having access to resources that alone create monopoly concerns. Totally agree. Another “simple” solution is different taxes based on size (maybe based on global revenues or profits).
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Definitely in favor of simple rules, as they're harder to game, but not sure tax rate alone would be sufficient to redress (as it's also subject to accounting creativity). Throwing ideas out there: - Past a certain size, companies are prohibited from acquiring/merging with another company - Past a certain size, companies are subject to data interoperability requirements (i.e. 'must have takeout'), with an independent team funded and dedicated to implementing requests, and penalties if they aren't released within a certain timeframe The goal should be that e.g. "being Alphabet-sized" is not in Alphabet's own best interest, and it would be more beneficial to itself / its shareholders to break into multiple smaller companies that would be subject to less restriction but are independent. And critically, the same requirements would apply to international companies doing business in the US. So, increasing competition, but keeping the playing field level for all.
CatWChainsaw 2y ago
The conundrum is that the entrenched powers could likely continue to wield power based on the amount of regulations and standards in tech nowadays. There basically would need to be a way to subsidize startups for whom such compliance is a significant expense.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Tax the big companies to subsidize smaller ones perhaps?
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    What kind of size are we talking about here? There’s lots of programs to subsidize truly small businesses, which I think are a good idea. It’s less obvious to me that we should tax the Googles making tens of billions in profit to subsidize companies making millions.
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    I don't reflexively gag at the thought of some redistribution but I think that redistribution of money is a medium-term bandaid solution for this scenario. I've been meaning to read Chokepoint Capitalism for a while but from the name alone it sounds like government or public intervention ought to be focused on preventing the creation of such chokepoints. Not just near-monopoly like Microsoft has over lots of PC bootloader signatures, but also avoiding duopolies like Android-Apple. In very vague terms the most sensible option would be that it should be possible for any size party to create a minimum viable product so that market forces could actually work - such as open-sourcing a "minimum viable" amount of IP that a competitor can ship a product and let customer experience and market forces come to the fore, instead of lock-in, walled gardens, regulatory capture, standards burden etc. Personally I also would like to see standard education include something akin to "How To Get Away With Murder" except it's "How FAANG Gets Away With Fucking Everybody". Bring the technical and economic literacy of the general populace closer to the average HN level, basically. More tinkers, more hackers. And, in a broader sweep, a comment I made recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40461326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40461326
vundercind 2y ago
“That company’s really big, that’s per se bad for markets” used to be (more or less) the standard. Now it’s not and every major category of good and service is dominated by a handful of businesses that would never have been allowed to grow that large before.
tarboreus 2y ago
This comment shouldn't be downvoted. Point to a 750 billion dollar company that doesn't have undue market power.

ethbr1 2y ago

The problem was created by globalization. Previously, companies could only grow so big. Now with a worldwide addressable market, that's increased substantially. I'd love to see US antitrust law recast as a series of increasing restrictions. No need to make it binary. If you exceed this threshold, these are the requirements you're held to... If you exceed this next threshold, these are the additional requirements... The root issue is that extremely large companies are held to the same rules as much smaller companies, while having access to resources that alone create monopoly concerns. And, IMHO, Godzilla-style "find a big monster to fight the big monster" regulation isn't a healthy approach to creating competition. Much better to increase competition restrictions with company size.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> The root issue is that extremely large companies are held to the same rules as much smaller companies, while having access to resources that alone create monopoly concerns. Totally agree. Another “simple” solution is different taxes based on size (maybe based on global revenues or profits).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Definitely in favor of simple rules, as they're harder to game, but not sure tax rate alone would be sufficient to redress (as it's also subject to accounting creativity). Throwing ideas out there: - Past a certain size, companies are prohibited from acquiring/merging with another company - Past a certain size, companies are subject to data interoperability requirements (i.e. 'must have takeout'), with an independent team funded and dedicated to implementing requests, and penalties if they aren't released within a certain timeframe The goal should be that e.g. "being Alphabet-sized" is not in Alphabet's own best interest, and it would be more beneficial to itself / its shareholders to break into multiple smaller companies that would be subject to less restriction but are independent. And critically, the same requirements would apply to international companies doing business in the US. So, increasing competition, but keeping the playing field level for all.

CatWChainsaw 2y ago

The conundrum is that the entrenched powers could likely continue to wield power based on the amount of regulations and standards in tech nowadays. There basically would need to be a way to subsidize startups for whom such compliance is a significant expense.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Tax the big companies to subsidize smaller ones perhaps?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  What kind of size are we talking about here? There’s lots of programs to subsidize truly small businesses, which I think are a good idea. It’s less obvious to me that we should tax the Googles making tens of billions in profit to subsidize companies making millions.
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  I don't reflexively gag at the thought of some redistribution but I think that redistribution of money is a medium-term bandaid solution for this scenario. I've been meaning to read Chokepoint Capitalism for a while but from the name alone it sounds like government or public intervention ought to be focused on preventing the creation of such chokepoints. Not just near-monopoly like Microsoft has over lots of PC bootloader signatures, but also avoiding duopolies like Android-Apple. In very vague terms the most sensible option would be that it should be possible for any size party to create a minimum viable product so that market forces could actually work - such as open-sourcing a "minimum viable" amount of IP that a competitor can ship a product and let customer experience and market forces come to the fore, instead of lock-in, walled gardens, regulatory capture, standards burden etc. Personally I also would like to see standard education include something akin to "How To Get Away With Murder" except it's "How FAANG Gets Away With Fucking Everybody". Bring the technical and economic literacy of the general populace closer to the average HN level, basically. More tinkers, more hackers. And, in a broader sweep, a comment I made recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40461326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40461326

vundercind 2y ago

“That company’s really big, that’s per se bad for markets” used to be (more or less) the standard. Now it’s not and every major category of good and service is dominated by a handful of businesses that would never have been allowed to grow that large before.

tarboreus 2y ago

This comment shouldn't be downvoted. Point to a 750 billion dollar company that doesn't have undue market power.