5 ms·

You shouldn't have to already be a monopoly to have your acts qualified as anti-trust. Just like the law should punish you for trying to scam people even though

by devcpp 12y ago

You shouldn't have to already be a monopoly to have your acts qualified as anti-trust. Just like the law should punish you for trying to scam people even though your scam didn't work. Otherwise, everyone would at least try to scam everyone else and would at least try to become a monopoly, since it costs nothing unless you win. And if you do win, the fine won't reach the amount you put in the bank (at least in the case of monopolies, e.g Microsoft).

baddox 12y ago
Unfortunately, antitrust cases are aimed at market share, rather than how the market share was acquired or what business practices the firm uses.
- chipotle_coyote 12y ago
  Speaking broadly, that's not true. Monopolies are not intrinsically illegal. Antitrust law is specifically about business practices, and the notion that monopolies have to be more restricted because they can use their domination of one market to affect related markets. What got Microsoft into trouble wasn't having 90% of the operating system market, it was the allegation that they were using that monopoly to take over the nascent browser market, force OEMs to accept terms that prevented alternative OSes from competing on level ground, and so on. I suspect Amazon is on their way to running afoul of such laws, or would be if the current business climate wasn't comparatively hostile to the notion of this kind of regulation. I don't think, however, that Zocalo is going to be a piece that attracts much attention; it's going to be the way Amazon seems to increasingly deal with their suppliers in Walmart-esque fashion. (Walmart was notorious for going beyond merely asking for "large customer" discounts and heading into "we will tell you what wholesale price we're going to pay, and you will either make it work or you'll lose the 60-70% of your business we represent.")
  - baddox 12y ago
    While your description of antitrust law is both commonly held and comparatively reasonable, it is unfortunately not always accurate in the United States. For a particularly egregious case, see US v. Alcoa, where the aluminum company was judged to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act simply for having a high market share, despite there being no accusation of any specific anti-competitive business practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa
Donzo 12y ago
Yeah, but there's nothing inherintely wrong with creating a lot of products. Look at 3M or DuPont. This argument might be better applied to what is going on with Hatchet right now.

by devcpp 12y ago

baddox 12y ago

Unfortunately, antitrust cases are aimed at market share, rather than how the market share was acquired or what business practices the firm uses.

chipotle_coyote 12y ago
Speaking broadly, that's not true. Monopolies are not intrinsically illegal. Antitrust law is specifically about business practices, and the notion that monopolies have to be more restricted because they can use their domination of one market to affect related markets. What got Microsoft into trouble wasn't having 90% of the operating system market, it was the allegation that they were using that monopoly to take over the nascent browser market, force OEMs to accept terms that prevented alternative OSes from competing on level ground, and so on. I suspect Amazon is on their way to running afoul of such laws, or would be if the current business climate wasn't comparatively hostile to the notion of this kind of regulation. I don't think, however, that Zocalo is going to be a piece that attracts much attention; it's going to be the way Amazon seems to increasingly deal with their suppliers in Walmart-esque fashion. (Walmart was notorious for going beyond merely asking for "large customer" discounts and heading into "we will tell you what wholesale price we're going to pay, and you will either make it work or you'll lose the 60-70% of your business we represent.")
- baddox 12y ago
  While your description of antitrust law is both commonly held and comparatively reasonable, it is unfortunately not always accurate in the United States. For a particularly egregious case, see US v. Alcoa, where the aluminum company was judged to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act simply for having a high market share, despite there being no accusation of any specific anti-competitive business practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

Donzo 12y ago

Yeah, but there's nothing inherintely wrong with creating a lot of products. Look at 3M or DuPont. This argument might be better applied to what is going on with Hatchet right now.