3 ms·
If it creates a monopoly then no, it's not okay, no matter how normal.
by causal 2y ago
If it creates a monopoly then no, it's not okay, no matter how normal.
- legitster 2y agoNot necessarily - as it is written, the Sherman anti-trust act and all of the amendments distinguishes between "innocent" and "coercive" monopolies. But the definitions are very loose and hard to pin down. It's hard to even consistently distinguish a monopoly - is it market share? Earning power? Barriers to entry?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago> It's hard to even consistently distinguish a monopoly - is it market share? Earning power? Barriers to entry? "I know it when I see it," as it is difficult at best to rely on distinctive actions or indicators considering the fluidity of business dynamics and the market landscape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
- ssl-3 2y agoThe definitions mean whatever the judge says they mean.
- svnt 2y agoAs soon as they formalized a metric to distinguish a monopoly, it would become something deliberately managed by entities who wished to wield monopolistic power. It would change the shape, but not the definition.
- j_maffe 2y ago> But the definitions are very loose and hard to pin down. So are a lot of laws and regulations. Doesn't make them any less valid.
- moffkalast 2y agoDamn, someone tell the Justice Department that Nvidia exists.
- pnt12 2y agoDoes Nvidia negotiate deals for all gaming + crypto + AI companies to use their cards, or do they just provide good hardware + software that consumers want to use? That would be the difference of an anti-competition monopoly vs just a monopoly.
- j_maffe 2y agoExactly. Google capitalized on its monopoly status. That's what matters.