4 ms·

> The law is supposed to protect consumers from a monopolist that uses its power to raise prices or restrict choices. This is a very narrow view of what antitr

> The law is supposed to protect consumers from a monopolist that uses its power to raise prices or restrict choices. This is a very narrow view of what antitrust is all about. Are monopolies essentially fine as long as they don't abuse their power too much?

pram 2y ago
Historically “yes” they’ve been “fine” if they’re regulated, like the Bell System. Although obviously Google/Apple/Microsoft/Meta would prefer to be monopolies without “government interference”
gotorazor 2y ago
I think the suit points out that google does restrict choice. For pricing, Google's search dominance raises the prices of word advertising.
choilive 2y ago
In short, yes. Monopolies are not illegal in the US per se. It is only illegal if they exploit their position via what is known as "anticompetitive conduct".
- Narhem 2y ago
  I’d say all the technology companies are relatively anticompetitive due to the nature of the work.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    What nature of it?
    - Narhem 2y ago
      Fighting over limited resources by definition of the type of work.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        Fighting over limited resources is basically what competition is, and I would say most (all?) industries could be characterized this way too. I think it's more the issue that compatibility extremely difficult in technology in a lot of important ways that makes competition and regulation hard. But more importantly, at least on the internet/search/social media side of things, because it is extremely pervasive and holds huge influence on the population and has a lot of data on the population, which makes it an incredible tool to influence political opinion, so it has become very corrupt.
BadHumans 2y ago
Why wouldn't they be? If you fail to make a competitive product because your company sucks, I don't see why courts should take action against the company that is making a good product. However, if that company is using their market dominate position to prevent competitive products from entering the market, then they should be punished for that.
DannyBee 2y ago
In the US, yes. Historically, in the US, just about all forms of antitrust behavior (resale price maintenance, group boycotts, tying, etc) were considered per-se violations of law. That is, you didn't have to prove it harmed anyone, only that it happened. There were a few things analyzed under the rule of reason (basically does it do more harm than good to consumers, only considering economic effects). Since the early 1970's, that has slowly changed, and the number of things considered per-se violations has narrowed considerably. Most things are now analyzed under the rule of reason, and you have to show they really are harming consumers. So to circle back, being a monopoly in the US is fine[1] on its own. This is all very different than Europe. [1] Here's what the DOJ's antitrust division says: Unilateral conduct is outside the purview of section 2 unless the actor possesses monopoly power or is likely to achieve it. The mere possession or exercise of monopoly power is not an offense; the law addresses only the anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of such power (and certain related attempts). Mere harm to competitors--without harm to the competitive process--does not violate section 2. Competitive and exclusionary conduct can look alike--indeed, the same conduct can have both beneficial and exclusionary effects--making it hard to distinguish conduct that should be deemed unlawful from conduct that should not. Because competitive and exclusionary conduct often look alike, courts and enforcers need to be concerned with both underdeterrence and overdeterrence. See https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1#:~:text=The%20mere%20possession%20or%20exercise,and%20is%20to%20be%20condemned https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol....

pram 2y ago

Historically “yes” they’ve been “fine” if they’re regulated, like the Bell System. Although obviously Google/Apple/Microsoft/Meta would prefer to be monopolies without “government interference”

gotorazor 2y ago

I think the suit points out that google does restrict choice. For pricing, Google's search dominance raises the prices of word advertising.

choilive 2y ago

In short, yes. Monopolies are not illegal in the US per se. It is only illegal if they exploit their position via what is known as "anticompetitive conduct".

Narhem 2y ago
I’d say all the technology companies are relatively anticompetitive due to the nature of the work.
- starspangled 2y ago
  What nature of it?
  - Narhem 2y ago
    Fighting over limited resources by definition of the type of work.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      Fighting over limited resources is basically what competition is, and I would say most (all?) industries could be characterized this way too. I think it's more the issue that compatibility extremely difficult in technology in a lot of important ways that makes competition and regulation hard. But more importantly, at least on the internet/search/social media side of things, because it is extremely pervasive and holds huge influence on the population and has a lot of data on the population, which makes it an incredible tool to influence political opinion, so it has become very corrupt.

BadHumans 2y ago

Why wouldn't they be? If you fail to make a competitive product because your company sucks, I don't see why courts should take action against the company that is making a good product. However, if that company is using their market dominate position to prevent competitive products from entering the market, then they should be punished for that.

DannyBee 2y ago

In the US, yes. Historically, in the US, just about all forms of antitrust behavior (resale price maintenance, group boycotts, tying, etc) were considered per-se violations of law. That is, you didn't have to prove it harmed anyone, only that it happened. There were a few things analyzed under the rule of reason (basically does it do more harm than good to consumers, only considering economic effects). Since the early 1970's, that has slowly changed, and the number of things considered per-se violations has narrowed considerably. Most things are now analyzed under the rule of reason, and you have to show they really are harming consumers. So to circle back, being a monopoly in the US is fine[1] on its own. This is all very different than Europe. [1] Here's what the DOJ's antitrust division says: Unilateral conduct is outside the purview of section 2 unless the actor possesses monopoly power or is likely to achieve it. The mere possession or exercise of monopoly power is not an offense; the law addresses only the anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of such power (and certain related attempts). Mere harm to competitors--without harm to the competitive process--does not violate section 2. Competitive and exclusionary conduct can look alike--indeed, the same conduct can have both beneficial and exclusionary effects--making it hard to distinguish conduct that should be deemed unlawful from conduct that should not. Because competitive and exclusionary conduct often look alike, courts and enforcers need to be concerned with both underdeterrence and overdeterrence. See https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1#:~:text=The%20mere%20possession%20or%20exercise,and%20is%20to%20be%20condemned https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol....