Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calling for Antitrust Reform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 212 posts

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#31

Post by threeseed »

Hellbanevil wrote: post #30
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly. No not monopolies like we had like the Bell telephone, but we have 2-3 huge companies that collude and stifle competition. Proving collusion is hard these days though. Too many fresh faced MBA's who are atheists. (I'm a Watch Repairer. I can't buy parts from The Swatch Group, or Reichmo…

> When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly.

You can't just redefine what words mean if you want to be taken seriously.

Especially when what you described is a legitimate and very common business tactic [1]

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lossleader.asp

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#32

Post by nine_k »

Hellbanevil wrote: post #30
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly. No not monopolies like we had like the Bell telephone, but we have 2-3 huge companies that collude and stifle competition. Proving collusion is hard these days though. Too many fresh faced MBA's who are atheists. (I'm a Watch Repairer. I can't buy parts from The Swatch Group, or Reichmo…

> When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly.

But this may happen even on a highly competitive market, if one company is a large established one (say, controlling 10% of the market), and the other is a small startup. Just make the key differentiating feature which the new competitor is bringing free in your established product for some time. Implement it first, if needed.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#33

Post by goodpoint »

joecool1029 wrote: post #4

>A fair playing field is vital to ensure that Mozilla and other independent companies can continue to act as a counterweight to big tech You literally exist on Google revenue provided in order to prevent antitrust litigation, hardly independent.

And how is this invalidating the open letter?

Does such message stop being true depending on who said it?

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#34

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

> We are further challenged by app store rules designed to keep out Gecko, our independent browser engine that powers Firefox, Tor and other browsers.

Ironically, getting rid of Apple’s browser restrictions will likely result in website developers writing their sites just for Chrome.

With Chrome now available on every platform, it will be cheaper and easier to only support that one browser.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#35

Post by price »

joecool1029 wrote: post #15
j-bos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything that lends weight to the message. Like an ant calling out the elephant.

You can rationalize it that way, I get it. However, last I checked Mozilla has a lawyer as their CEO. Why do you think they haven't tested this idea in court if the message is so good?

The blog post you are writing comments about is literally about working to get the law changed.

Courts apply the existing law. The existing law puts very few constraints on big companies using their power. That is exactly why Mozilla is urging Congress to change the law.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#36

Post by tehlike »

threeseed wrote: post #9
superb-owl wrote: post #3

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disallowing other browsers in iOS or Google promoting its own sites in search results are illegal and anticompetitive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... .

Apple allows other browsers. They don't allow other browser engines. And I actually don't see how cementing the Chrome engine's dominance on iOS as well as other platforms is good for the web. Because inevitably that is what will happen as just like in the IE days, websites will only work on that browser as it offers the most proprietary features. And why would you develop for multiple browsers when Chrome is availab…

Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business.

E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things.

When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#37

Post by nine_k »

Why can't Mozilla offer a a way to make a recurring donation, Patreon-style, or Github-style?

It should be locked to specific projects though: Firefox, Thunderbird, MDN, experimental projects, etc.

Of course introduce gold / platinum / titanium / etc tiers for corporate donations, along with donations from private persons.

They are already a non-profit, making this tax-deductible would be a piece of cake.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#38

Post by enragedcacti »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #16
superb-owl wrote: post #3

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disallowing other browsers in iOS or Google promoting its own sites in search results are illegal and anticompetitive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... .

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

> At trial, the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the district court's judgments.

> I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads.

Consider updating the curriculum? My understanding is that the bundling was actionable because they were considered a monopoly.

Post reply on HN