4 ms·

That is the definition of antitrust regulation.

thatswrong0 12y ago
No it's not. There is no definition. It's all up to the interpretation of the politicians who wish to pursue it and the opinion and action of the judges on each case. Remember the Microsoft case?
jwallaceparker 12y ago
Can you name one monopoly that exists anywhere that is not the creation of a government in the first place? Do some digging into the history of antitrust legislation. The Sherman Antitrust legislation was an act of mercantilism designed to protect incompetent businesses who were losing market share to superior competition, most notably Standard Oil, the poster boy monopoly which gained an 85 percent market share through lower prices and economies of scale, delivering a benefit to consumers but harming their comparably inefficient competitors. It was those same competitors who spearheaded the antitrust legislation, not the poor consumers 'suffering' from lower prices and superior service at the hands of the 'monopolistic' Standard Oil.
- jerf 12y ago
  "Can you name one monopoly that exists anywhere that is not the creation of a government in the first place?" Microsoft. I'm a libertarian, but one of the reasons I can't even consider being an anarchist is that I consider anti-trust regulation to be a good and proper function of a government. I'd break up a lot more, personally. It's one thing that I find the otherwise-excitable class warriors to be bizarrely reticent to do. I'd also observe that antitrust regulations do not forbid monopolies... they forbid the abuse of monopolies, according to a certain definition of abuse. Microsoft was not punished for having a dominant desktop OS, they were punished for using that dominance to engage in shenanigans to try to "abusively" (in accordance with the legal definition) extend that dominance into a another sphere. Of course that is the theory, and what happens in the courtroom in fact may be arbitrarily related to the theory, but that is the theory.
  - badsock 12y ago
    I certainly suffered under that monopoly (as did the entire industry) but couldn't the argument be made that market forces took care of it without government intervention? I'm aware that there was an anti-trust judgement against them, but as far as I can tell it didn't deter them in any significant way. It seems to me that they simply collapsed under their own hubris and the blowback from their decades of abusive practices, and as soon as they weakened the competition ate their lunch.
    - jerf 12y ago
      "I certainly suffered under that monopoly (as did the entire industry) but couldn't the argument be made that market forces took care of it without government intervention?" YMMV vary, but my conclusion is this: The government successfully prevented Microsoft from crushing the rest of the browsers. They really were trying, really did damage Netscape, and really were well on their way to more dominance in that field than they had a "right" too. And they were on their way, too; Netscape was faltering and IE was a better browser for a good long time. As it is they still had enough dominance to end up causing web tech to stagnate badly for a few years. However, recall why Microsoft was so scared of the browser, which is that it threatened to become its own OS and make it so you could run a computer without Windows that could do everything you needed. Broadly speaking (bear with me here), this still has not happened. Here in 2014, you could run a small business out of a browser, and you can do a lot with a Chromebook, but Windows is still around, still powerful, and still pretty full of legacy software that doesn't exist in a browser and businesses are not having an easy time disposing of... witness the continuing lurching life of Windows XP, which Microsoft wants to be rid of and can't be. I think it was a good decision and still correct, even if ultimately it really only served as a very large shot across Microsoft's bow (even if it was aimed at the hull) due to the fact that the browsers of the time weren't going to be able to manifest the promise of displacing Windows. We'll never know, but the secondary effects of chastising Microsoft may have been worth more than the primary effects ever could be. And I do think the secondary effects were more important; the direct impact pales in comparison to the fact that they'd just been notified they couldn't proceed down that path any farther than they'd already gone without the costs exceeding the benefits. Of course, what truly displaced Microsoft turned out to be more Apple, via the MacOSX and mobile, which Microsoft continues to struggle with. But so may years ago, who'da thunk it? And it would have been silly for the government to count on that.
- seizethecheese 12y ago
  I've read multiple biographies of John Rockefeller and Standard Oil engaged in a variety of anticompetitive practices such as operating at a loss when competitors emerged, or withholding lubricant shipments to railroads during rate negotiations. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head. That Standard Oil succeeded just through scale is a complete fabrication.

No it's not. There is no definition. It's all up to the interpretation of the politicians who wish to pursue it and the opinion and action of the judges on each case. Remember the Microsoft case?

jwallaceparker 12y ago

Can you name one monopoly that exists anywhere that is not the creation of a government in the first place? Do some digging into the history of antitrust legislation. The Sherman Antitrust legislation was an act of mercantilism designed to protect incompetent businesses who were losing market share to superior competition, most notably Standard Oil, the poster boy monopoly which gained an 85 percent market share through lower prices and economies of scale, delivering a benefit to consumers but harming their comparably inefficient competitors. It was those same competitors who spearheaded the antitrust legislation, not the poor consumers 'suffering' from lower prices and superior service at the hands of the 'monopolistic' Standard Oil.

jerf 12y ago
"Can you name one monopoly that exists anywhere that is not the creation of a government in the first place?" Microsoft. I'm a libertarian, but one of the reasons I can't even consider being an anarchist is that I consider anti-trust regulation to be a good and proper function of a government. I'd break up a lot more, personally. It's one thing that I find the otherwise-excitable class warriors to be bizarrely reticent to do. I'd also observe that antitrust regulations do not forbid monopolies... they forbid the abuse of monopolies, according to a certain definition of abuse. Microsoft was not punished for having a dominant desktop OS, they were punished for using that dominance to engage in shenanigans to try to "abusively" (in accordance with the legal definition) extend that dominance into a another sphere. Of course that is the theory, and what happens in the courtroom in fact may be arbitrarily related to the theory, but that is the theory.
- badsock 12y ago
  I certainly suffered under that monopoly (as did the entire industry) but couldn't the argument be made that market forces took care of it without government intervention? I'm aware that there was an anti-trust judgement against them, but as far as I can tell it didn't deter them in any significant way. It seems to me that they simply collapsed under their own hubris and the blowback from their decades of abusive practices, and as soon as they weakened the competition ate their lunch.
  - jerf 12y ago
    "I certainly suffered under that monopoly (as did the entire industry) but couldn't the argument be made that market forces took care of it without government intervention?" YMMV vary, but my conclusion is this: The government successfully prevented Microsoft from crushing the rest of the browsers. They really were trying, really did damage Netscape, and really were well on their way to more dominance in that field than they had a "right" too. And they were on their way, too; Netscape was faltering and IE was a better browser for a good long time. As it is they still had enough dominance to end up causing web tech to stagnate badly for a few years. However, recall why Microsoft was so scared of the browser, which is that it threatened to become its own OS and make it so you could run a computer without Windows that could do everything you needed. Broadly speaking (bear with me here), this still has not happened. Here in 2014, you could run a small business out of a browser, and you can do a lot with a Chromebook, but Windows is still around, still powerful, and still pretty full of legacy software that doesn't exist in a browser and businesses are not having an easy time disposing of... witness the continuing lurching life of Windows XP, which Microsoft wants to be rid of and can't be. I think it was a good decision and still correct, even if ultimately it really only served as a very large shot across Microsoft's bow (even if it was aimed at the hull) due to the fact that the browsers of the time weren't going to be able to manifest the promise of displacing Windows. We'll never know, but the secondary effects of chastising Microsoft may have been worth more than the primary effects ever could be. And I do think the secondary effects were more important; the direct impact pales in comparison to the fact that they'd just been notified they couldn't proceed down that path any farther than they'd already gone without the costs exceeding the benefits. Of course, what truly displaced Microsoft turned out to be more Apple, via the MacOSX and mobile, which Microsoft continues to struggle with. But so may years ago, who'da thunk it? And it would have been silly for the government to count on that.
seizethecheese 12y ago
I've read multiple biographies of John Rockefeller and Standard Oil engaged in a variety of anticompetitive practices such as operating at a loss when competitors emerged, or withholding lubricant shipments to railroads during rate negotiations. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head. That Standard Oil succeeded just through scale is a complete fabrication.