4 ms·

Several people already told you: it doesn't matter if it's trivially easy not to use google.com or chrome. Anti-trust law is about market realities. Google has

Several people already told you: it doesn't matter if it's trivially easy not to use google.com or chrome. Anti-trust law is about market realities. Google has a dominant position in several markets and they abuse it to gain advantage in other markets as well.

Goronmon 12y ago
Anti-trust law is about market realities. Such as the fact that you can easily use something other than Chrome and Google search on any of devices? I mean, the position is starting to sound like "anti-trust" really means "The government taxes companies who hold a dominant position in the marketplace." Edit: I can't reply to this thread anymore, so I'll just expand a bit here. I get that on some level, all regulation/etc is some form of tax. I guess my point is that what constitutes 'anti-trust' is too unclear. It sounds a lot like governments just arbitrarily decide that its time for a certain company to give them money, without adequate justification.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I mean, the position is starting to sound like "anti-trust" really means "The government taxes companies who hold a dominant position in the marketplace." Anti-trust is overtly about government placing additional restrictions (which, as they have costs, can be viewed as a kind of taxes) on companies with market power so as to limit the degree to which that market power accelerates within its core market and spreads to other markets denying effective choice. So, you haven't really discovered anything that isn't exactly the overt point of antitrust law.
chc 12y ago
> Several people already told you: it doesn't matter if it's trivially easy not to use google.com or chrome. Anti-trust law is about market realities. From the anti-trust cases I've seen, the existence of viable (in the sense of accessible and sufficient, I think) alternatives is usually one of the market realities taken into consideration. If it is trivially easy not to use Google.com or Chrome, then Google's position is solidified by consumer choice rather than anti-competitive behavior.

Goronmon 12y ago

Anti-trust law is about market realities. Such as the fact that you can easily use something other than Chrome and Google search on any of devices? I mean, the position is starting to sound like "anti-trust" really means "The government taxes companies who hold a dominant position in the marketplace." Edit: I can't reply to this thread anymore, so I'll just expand a bit here. I get that on some level, all regulation/etc is some form of tax. I guess my point is that what constitutes 'anti-trust' is too unclear. It sounds a lot like governments just arbitrarily decide that its time for a certain company to give them money, without adequate justification.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I mean, the position is starting to sound like "anti-trust" really means "The government taxes companies who hold a dominant position in the marketplace." Anti-trust is overtly about government placing additional restrictions (which, as they have costs, can be viewed as a kind of taxes) on companies with market power so as to limit the degree to which that market power accelerates within its core market and spreads to other markets denying effective choice. So, you haven't really discovered anything that isn't exactly the overt point of antitrust law.

chc 12y ago

> Several people already told you: it doesn't matter if it's trivially easy not to use google.com or chrome. Anti-trust law is about market realities. From the anti-trust cases I've seen, the existence of viable (in the sense of accessible and sufficient, I think) alternatives is usually one of the market realities taken into consideration. If it is trivially easy not to use Google.com or Chrome, then Google's position is solidified by consumer choice rather than anti-competitive behavior.