Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In • Hacker News Board

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#91

Post by JohnFen » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

cljs-js-eval wrote: post #44

I'm glad we're finally taking anti-trust seriously, but this timing is incredibly suspicious. Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start taking steps to limit our own? A good, plausibly deniable soft power attack would be to make an antitrust case, present it to the feds with the work already done, and let them do their thing now that they basically have to take action or look foolish. No malicious actors…

> Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start taking steps to limit our own?

I don't see this as taking steps to limit our own tech at all.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#92

Post by studentrob » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #59

And not Comcast, Walmart, AT&T? ... I wonder why

Comcast and AT&T have the ability to force consumers to pay more with no chance of losing revenue. Regional broadband monopolies + no net neutrality allows them to,

1, Zero-rate their own video services [1]

2, Throttle competitors like Netflix

3, Charge competitors more, passing on costs to consumers

[1] https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-t...

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#93

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #81

bduerst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketshare != Monopolizing Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market. Things such as forcing OEMs to not allow linux support, or banning iTunes installation on Windows. Simply being popular isn't the same as a monopoly. Apple has, on the other hand, been monopolizing their iOS devices with the app store. It is the only way to install apps on iOS and Apple has pla…

> Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market No. I think the distinction here is important and worth being mindful of. Whether or not a company is abusing their monopoly position has no bearing on whether or not they are a monopoly. You can't abuse a monopoly position if you aren't a monopoly to begin with, after all. The distinction is important because in the US…

[deleted]

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#94

Post by SomeOldThrow » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #27

In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…

> It's almost as if the theory that monopolies inevitably grow to take over the world has serious problems :-)

I'm not sure the sequence of progressively bigger monopolies is a positive thing.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#95

Post by fyoving » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

Allow me to temper some of the glee exhibited in the comments and even in some of the reports but a key line here is:

"The divvying of antitrust enforcement does not mean that the agencies have opened official investigations"

It is worth keeping in mind that antitrust enforcement in the US doesn't care about whiny competitors but if the enduser and customer is harmed and it doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to any of these corporations.

This whole thing is terribly misguided, there is a long list of companies and markets worthy of antitrust scrutiny and these tech companies if they are on that list then they are at the very bottom of it. The real drag on the economy are the high prices of healthcare and housing, there is also the case that ISPs have obvious monopolies and are providing inferior products and services and the list goes on.

The role of the media here shouldn't be ignored, they coined the term "big tech" to conjure negative associations and they continuously publish alarmist coverage about any combination of these firms, they also stand to benefit if any enforcement action were to occur.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#96

Post by scribu » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

djflutt3rshy wrote: post #84

losteric wrote: post #59

And not Comcast, Walmart, AT&T? ... I wonder why

Gotta give money to the winning team... Alphabet: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000067823&cy... Apple: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021754&cy... Amazon: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000023883&cy... Facebook: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cy... --- Comcast: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000461&cy... Walmart: htt…

It's interesting that every company in that list (except Walmart) had a massive spike in contributions to the blue team starting in 2016.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#97

Post by PavlovsCat » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #80

zerocrates wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who Twitter & friends choose to allow or not on their services doesn't really involve the First Amendment at all. Or rather, it doesn't as long as they're allowed to choose for themselves. Regulation trying to control who they can kick out and why would implicate the First Amendment quite directly. If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a…

>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.

> Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals

"Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them?

Who did Carey Wedler harm, for example? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 Or is that "not typical", as in "No True Scotsman"?

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#98

Post by istjohn » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #27

In my career, first it was IBM, the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to take over the world. Then it was Microsoft, and everyone forgot about IBM. Then it was Apple, and everyone forgot about Microsoft. Before IBM, it was RCA. Everyone has forgotten about RCA. It's like in retail. First it's Sears, the unstoppable juggernaut that will take over the world. Then it's Walmart, and Sears is bankrupt. Now it's Amazon…

> It's almost as if the theory that monopolies inevitably grow to take over the world has serious problems.

That's a straw man. No one is saying monopolies are immortal. An economy where monopoly usurps monopoly, one after the other in a continuous cycle is a problem, too.

If you want a real debate, make the case that the world wouldn't be better off if these tech giants were split up like Ma Bell was in the 1950's and forced to compete without the benefits of being able to buy out the first hint of competition. Make the case that we're better off having ONE giant social network, ONE giant online retailer. How often are promising young product or service companies bought out by giant companies just to be left to dry on the vine, no longer a threat to their new owners? Is this what a healthy economy looks like?

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#99

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:06 PM UTC

jhayward wrote: post #72

WalterBright wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM's fall happened long after the anti-trust action against them. It's Microsoft that tipped them over, not government regulators, and IBM made one disastrous mistake after another, starting with the PS/2. While MS was convicted of anti-trust, there wasn't much of any action taken against them. The reasons for them slipping would make for an interesting book.

IBMs fall began with the PC, which they made an open design explicitly because of anti-trust pressures. They lost control of the design and the market on PCs, which led to the rise of, well, most of the market since then. Your comments are wrong enough to be attempts at revision of history.

> which they made an open design explicitly because of anti-trust pressures.

AFAIK, they didn't not, in fact, make it an “open design” intentionally. They published clear specs to encourage peripheral development, which also helped clone makers, but the BIOS was proprietary and had to be reverse engineered by clone makers to be legal. IBM sued several clone makers for infringement (largely for copying rather than reverse engineering the BIOS) and forced them to shutter, which presumably would not have happened if the design was intentionally open.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#100

Post by bduerst » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:06 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #81

bduerst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketshare != Monopolizing Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market. Things such as forcing OEMs to not allow linux support, or banning iTunes installation on Windows. Simply being popular isn't the same as a monopoly. Apple has, on the other hand, been monopolizing their iOS devices with the app store. It is the only way to install apps on iOS and Apple has pla…

> Microsoft would have to be doing anticompetitive behavior to be monopolizing the desktop market No. I think the distinction here is important and worth being mindful of. Whether or not a company is abusing their monopoly position has no bearing on whether or not they are a monopoly. You can't abuse a monopoly position if you aren't a monopoly to begin with, after all. The distinction is important because in the US…

Again, simply being dominant in a market _is not_ being a monopoly.

Monopolies are definitively the exclusive control or possession of the supply of the market. Just as a Monopsony is exclusive control or possession of the demand in a market. Microsoft has dominant market position but they do not control the entire supply of OS, hence they are the popular choice but not the exclusive choice.

Whether or not a monopoly is legal or illegal is non sequitur, since it doesn't apply in context here. There are plenty of legal, regional monopolies that benefit consumers from such regulation in utilities, but those are not tech markets.