3 ms·

After the DoJ vs. Apple suit was mentioned in March, I did some research before about what the DoJ views unfavorably in this arena. My bullet points were useful

by xpe 2y ago

After the DoJ vs. Apple suit was mentioned in March, I did some research before about what the DoJ views unfavorably in this arena. My bullet points were useful to a lot of people here then, so perhaps it can help inform some of the conversation here too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39782290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39782290 After some research, the practices below may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the Department of Justice views unfavorably: * horizontal agreements between competitors such as price fixing and market allocation * vertical agreements between firms at different levels of the supply chain such as resale price maintenance and exclusive dealing * unilateral exclusionary conduct such as predatory pricing, refusal to deal with competitors, and limiting interoperability * conditional sales practices such as tying and bundling * monopoly leveraging where a firm uses its dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another Any of these behaviors undermines the conditions necessary for a competitive market. I'd be happy to have the list above expanded, contracted, or modified. Let me know.

svnt 2y ago
Some of these are a bit different in scope to some of your points, but here a few things I believe aren't really covered: Predatory hiring: Hiring key employees from competitors primarily to weaken them rather than to benefit from the employees' skills. Patent abuse: Using a large portfolio of patents to stifle competition rather than to protect legitimate innovations. Regulatory capture: Using influence to shape regulations in ways that benefit the monopolist and create barriers for potential competitors. Killer acquisitions: Buying potential competitors primarily to eliminate future competition rather than to integrate their technology or talent. Data hoarding: In digital markets, collecting and refusing to share data that is crucial for competitors to enter or compete effectively in the market. Self-preferencing: In platform markets, giving preferential treatment to one's own products or services over those of competitors. Vaporware: Announcing nonexistent or deliberately suboptimal products or features to discourage customers from switching to competitors' existing products.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Most of these don't make much sense: Predatory hiring - banning this would be preventing competition in the labor market and be extremely bad for workers. Also unproveable. Regulatory capture - the government regulators are not going to sue themselves Killer acquisitions - already illegal to engage in acquisition to form monopoly Data hoarding - the government can't force you to share things for free. That violates the takings clause Self-preferencing - this is such a long standing and legally permitted practice that it is not plausible to make illegal. e.g. every grocery store has a store brand that they favor. Vaporware - if this is a provable lie it is already covered by fraud statutes, and it would be such a stupid move by the company that I don't believe it actually happens
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > Also unproveable. No? I'm always surprised by what corporate chats and emails reveal.
- w10-1 2y ago
  > what the DoJ views unfavorably in this arena I think he meant to add `...for anti-trust purposes` Data and acquisitions (and maybe platforming) might be considered under anti-trust. Others not so much.
paulpan 2y ago
The premise is actually quite similar to the US vs. Standard Oil antitrust case from a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey... Just as Standard Oil used their position to force railroads and other distributors to only carry their oil and not of their competitors', the same case here with Google. Arguably all these antitrust cases, while better late than never, are at least a decade late. If it was filed in the early 2010s, then possibly there could've been viable competitors to Google, Apple, Amazon, and even Meta. But now these tech titans all have unassailable positions.
- xpe 2y ago
  > But now these tech titans all have unassailable positions. It sometimes seems this way, at least over the near term. But even giants can fall. Time will tell. It is interesting that their advantages don't solely come from economies of scale or bundling ... there are other factors at work, such as: 1. They leave space for lots of others to make money... 2. ...Until a subspace grows into an attractive product opportunity for the giant to scoop up. How convenient that the market was pre-validated! 3. ...But even competitors that grow powerful are tempted to "defect" and join the Borg by being acquired / absorbed.

by xpe 2y ago

svnt 2y ago

Some of these are a bit different in scope to some of your points, but here a few things I believe aren't really covered: Predatory hiring: Hiring key employees from competitors primarily to weaken them rather than to benefit from the employees' skills. Patent abuse: Using a large portfolio of patents to stifle competition rather than to protect legitimate innovations. Regulatory capture: Using influence to shape regulations in ways that benefit the monopolist and create barriers for potential competitors. Killer acquisitions: Buying potential competitors primarily to eliminate future competition rather than to integrate their technology or talent. Data hoarding: In digital markets, collecting and refusing to share data that is crucial for competitors to enter or compete effectively in the market. Self-preferencing: In platform markets, giving preferential treatment to one's own products or services over those of competitors. Vaporware: Announcing nonexistent or deliberately suboptimal products or features to discourage customers from switching to competitors' existing products.

fallingknife 2y ago
Most of these don't make much sense: Predatory hiring - banning this would be preventing competition in the labor market and be extremely bad for workers. Also unproveable. Regulatory capture - the government regulators are not going to sue themselves Killer acquisitions - already illegal to engage in acquisition to form monopoly Data hoarding - the government can't force you to share things for free. That violates the takings clause Self-preferencing - this is such a long standing and legally permitted practice that it is not plausible to make illegal. e.g. every grocery store has a store brand that they favor. Vaporware - if this is a provable lie it is already covered by fraud statutes, and it would be such a stupid move by the company that I don't believe it actually happens
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > Also unproveable. No? I'm always surprised by what corporate chats and emails reveal.
w10-1 2y ago
> what the DoJ views unfavorably in this arena I think he meant to add `...for anti-trust purposes` Data and acquisitions (and maybe platforming) might be considered under anti-trust. Others not so much.

paulpan 2y ago

The premise is actually quite similar to the US vs. Standard Oil antitrust case from a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey... Just as Standard Oil used their position to force railroads and other distributors to only carry their oil and not of their competitors', the same case here with Google. Arguably all these antitrust cases, while better late than never, are at least a decade late. If it was filed in the early 2010s, then possibly there could've been viable competitors to Google, Apple, Amazon, and even Meta. But now these tech titans all have unassailable positions.

xpe 2y ago
> But now these tech titans all have unassailable positions. It sometimes seems this way, at least over the near term. But even giants can fall. Time will tell. It is interesting that their advantages don't solely come from economies of scale or bundling ... there are other factors at work, such as: 1. They leave space for lots of others to make money... 2. ...Until a subspace grows into an attractive product opportunity for the giant to scoop up. How convenient that the market was pre-validated! 3. ...But even competitors that grow powerful are tempted to "defect" and join the Borg by being acquired / absorbed.