Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

Post by greggman3 » Sat, May 16, 2020, 9:56 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #199

onewhonknocks wrote: post #188

IMHO they're not a monopoly, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted." In this case, the supply of a good or service (social networking, webpage indexing and searching) are not controlled by Facebook and Google because they aren't finite resources. Anyone can index the web and…

"Monopolization Defined" The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any mark…

Post by harimau777 » Sat, May 16, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

riazrizvi wrote: post #337

shadowgovt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been a major gap between the American understanding of monopoly protection and the European one. In the European space, protection of smaller business' ability to compete is factored in. But the US space, in general, has not cared if smaller businesses can compete and tends to take a laissez-faire attitude towards business-on-business market pressures. It's the effect of the market on consumers that's paramo…

No, no, no. Amazon disrupted the grip that publishing houses had on publishing, they have democratized writing. Publishers and bookstores had restricted markets that were dictated by a few big publishing houses. Amazon disrupted that, which has lead to far more books being written. Books that have been self-published. How on earth is that considered a failing? Bookstores are no longer viable, because Amazon has obvia…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 16, 2020, 10:19 AM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #420

shadowgovt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been a major gap between the American understanding of monopoly protection and the European one. In the European space, protection of smaller business' ability to compete is factored in. But the US space, in general, has not cared if smaller businesses can compete and tends to take a laissez-faire attitude towards business-on-business market pressures. It's the effect of the market on consumers that's paramo…

The biggest factor which is not considered in antitrust law is the fact that large corporations, by virtue of controlling a lot of capital, have access to a larger share of all the new money which is created out of thin air and injected into the economy as credit. Economists are quick to point out that the new money which is created of of thin air is not given outright, but rather, it is loaned out - Therefore, by vi…

Post by jondubois » Sat, May 16, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #319

marmada wrote: post #302

A take: monopoly in tech is good. Because Google/Amazon/FB have so much money they can do things that push tech forward as a whole. Think about the revolutionary improvements Google has made towards data centers, AWS, and all the research/open source contributions these companies have done. Unlike other monopolies (telecom, defense contracting) etc. where the monopoly is used to stagnate innovation (see Comcast being…

Google/Amazon/Facebook have each served to stagnate tech, not push it forward. If you read their headlines, sure, you'll believe they're doing groundbreaking things. But in reality, these behemoths have killed thousands of innovative startups to protect their cash cows. The uncommitted experiments they run, meanwhile, never amount to anything useful for the world. There were better social networks than Facebook, but…

Post by ksec » Sat, May 16, 2020, 11:24 AM UTC

davidajackson wrote: post #119

mrkramer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's dominant market position was achieved through market competition not through impairing the ability of smaller companies to enter markets. Even in Google Chrome you can pick DuckDuckGo and Ecosia as your default search engine. Most of Chrome users probably never heard of those two search engines. For example would YouTube be successful as it is today if it wasn't Google's resources and knowledge to skyrocket…

When I think of harmful monopolies, I think that the worst ones are where a company owns a patent to a drug and refuses to sell it for less than 100x cost. But people every day can choose to type in any website into their search bar... and they choose to type Google. I don't see any reason why Google should be punished for that--unless they've done something bad elsewhere. It seems like a lawsuit will objectively mak…