3 ms·

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 employee

by 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.

by svnt 2y ago

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.