6 ms·
But Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on smart phones, so being anti-competitive is completely legal
by cududa 12y ago
But Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on smart phones, so being anti-competitive is completely legal
- justonepost 12y agoYep. This is the long and short of it. Apple is careful not to get monopolies which allows them to be as anti-competitive as they want. Not sure why this got downvoted. Typical HN..
- Oletros 12y agoWhat? Doing an anti competitive practice is legal if you don't have a monopoly?
- moskie 12y agoThat is my understanding. For example, Microsoft got in trouble for pre-installing IE on Windows because they had monopoly in the OS market. If they didn't have that monopoly, they would not have been penalized.
- brianpgordon 12y agoHaving a monopoly might put you under the microscope, but you certainly can't get away with anticompetitive practices like price fixing or wage fixing even if you don't have a monopoly.
- jahewson 12y agoYes but those are just about the only things which you can't get away with. The US has very weak consumer protection laws in general.
- LordKano 12y agoCollusion. Retail price maintenance. Dividing territories. Exclusive dealing. These are all anti-competitive behavior that will get one smacked by Federal regulators without being a monopoly.
- moskie 12y agoCan you link to specific examples of companies being found guilty of those things, where the company was not a monopoly, or part of an oligopoly?
- moskie 12y agoCan you link to specific examples of companies being found guilty of things like price fixing and wage fixing, where the company was not a monopoly, or part of an oligopoly?
- brianpgordon 12y agoWell there's this case, which got a lot of HN coverage: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/16/silicon_valley_415m_wage_fix_pacts_settlement/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/16/silicon_valley_415m_...
- moskie 12y agoLooks you're correct, thanks. Reading up on this a bit, I was wondering if Apple/Google/Intel/Adobe/etc constituted an oligopoly, but I don't see how that could true in this case. Also reading up on the Sherman Antitrust Act (which is what they were in violation of), the section that applied here does not require a monopoly or oligopoly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Elements
- Oletros 12y agoPre installing a browser is not an anti competitive practice.
- moskie 12y agoIt can be, if the company that does it has a monopoly in the market of operating systems, which would give that company an unfair advantage in the market of browsers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
- Oletros 12y agoPoor wording for my part, it must say "it is not an anti competitive practice per se"
- moskie 12y agoRight, the fact it is not illegally anticompetitive per se shows that it is an answer to your original question. > Doing an anti competitive practice is legal if you don't have a monopoly? A practice being anti-competitive (in a legal sense) depends on the act being done by a company that is a monopoly, or part of an oligopoly. For example, a company giving their product away for free is not illegal per se. Say, as part of a promotion, in order to get their product in consumer's hands instead of a competitor's product. In a healthy market, this is a valid way to do business. But, if the company that decides to give their product away for free is a monopoly, and the result of that act is squashing what little competition might exist or is entering the market, then this same act (giving the product away for free) is illegal.
- Oletros 12y agoMicrosoft was not found guilty for giving away IE
- krschultz 12y agoIf you define the market as smart phones. If you define the market as smart watches, Apple could well be dominant in 6 months and this behavior would not be OK.
- digi_owl 12y agoMonopoly is a smokescreen word. Antitrust is not about monopoly, it is about abuse of market position. If your company has 10% of the market, and the rest has 1% each, you can still be slapped for antitrust if you start using that position as leverage in a different market. ianal, btw...
- moskie 12y agoWhat are examples of companies being penalized for antitrust while not being a monopoly (or part of an oligopoly)?
- yellowapple 12y agoWell, there's Microsoft, which has been penalized on various occasions in the States and the EU despite not actually being a monopoly (there were plenty of other operating system vendors out there, Apple among them). And then you have Google, which has been taking quite a bit of flak from Europe lately.
- moskie 12y agoI'm sorry, could you be more specific? Please link to specific cases that meet the criteria (antitrust cases where the company is found guilty of anti-competitive practices that do NOT involve the company abusing their (mon|olig)opoly power in a certain market). Both those companies are involved in many cases, antitrust or otherwise, and I'm unable to find one that fits the bill. I think you (and digi_owl) are incorrect.
- yellowapple 12y agoNeither of them were or are actually monopolies (Google isn't the only search engine in the world, and Microsoft wasn't the only PC operating system vendor in the world even during the 90's), so literally any of the cases you've found would be applicable. An antitrust case can still be levied for conspiring to become a monopoly (as Microsoft did with its strongarming of OEMs combined and its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows). Apple has even run afoul of that at various times (like when it got dinged for its monopolistic behavior regarding e-books; it certainly didn't have an actual monopoly, but that still fell under antitrust regulations).