4 ms·
That 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 hav
by moskie 12y ago
That 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y agoPoor wording for my part, it must say "it is not an anti competitive practice per se"
- moskie 11y 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 11y agoMicrosoft was not found guilty for giving away IE