3 ms·

There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Proving a monopoly is the first hurdle that will continue to be ch

There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Proving a monopoly is the first hurdle that will continue to be challenging with Apple. That's why defining market is so critical in these cases. The government is already suggesting slices like 'performance smartphones' that make Apple look dominant.

tzs 2y ago
> There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Not quite. There is no need to prove a monopoly in order to prove a violation of US antitrust law. There FTC has a nice summary of the core federal antitrust laws here [1]. Some quotes: > The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." ... > The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." ... > The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). [...] As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. It's pretty much all about unfair competition and about attempts to create a monopoly. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- matwood 2y ago
  You're right, I spoke too freely and should have said legal methods of competition. What you're missing from your quote though is 'unreasonable'. Many types of restraint of trade, like exclusive business arrangements, are reasonable until the parties are at or near monopoly status. Or take price fixing that only works when the parties fixing the prices form a monopoly around the good. To tie this back to Google, just being declared a monopoly will now change how they do business. Deals they made before are no longer on the table and would be deemed unfair because Google is a monopoly.

tzs 2y ago

> There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Not quite. There is no need to prove a monopoly in order to prove a violation of US antitrust law. There FTC has a nice summary of the core federal antitrust laws here [1]. Some quotes: > The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." ... > The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." ... > The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). [...] As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. It's pretty much all about unfair competition and about attempts to create a monopoly. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

matwood 2y ago
You're right, I spoke too freely and should have said legal methods of competition. What you're missing from your quote though is 'unreasonable'. Many types of restraint of trade, like exclusive business arrangements, are reasonable until the parties are at or near monopoly status. Or take price fixing that only works when the parties fixing the prices form a monopoly around the good. To tie this back to Google, just being declared a monopoly will now change how they do business. Deals they made before are no longer on the table and would be deemed unfair because Google is a monopoly.