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

61–70 of 212 posts

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#61

Post by threeseed »

tomtheelder wrote: post #43
threeseed wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

When it's done to force competitors out of a market it's called predatory pricing [1], and it is not a legitimate business tactic. It is illegal in many jurisdictions, and generally considered unethical even where it's not specifically outlawed. It is also considered a strategy to achieve a monopoly or near-monopoly pricing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

You should read the link you posted.

That only applies when one of the competitors is effectively a monopoly anyway.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#62

Post by tylerhou »

gbear605 wrote: post #52
tehlike wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The web has been progressing too fast, and most of the things that Safari has held back on are features that developers want but users don’t, like push notifications.

I'd rather enable push notifications on a website than have to install a whole new app if I want them.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#63

Post by [deleted] »

leotravis10 wrote: post #41
throwaway_1928 wrote: post #28

John Oliver also covered tech monopolies recently. Tech Monopolies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXf04bhcjbg

Here's Mike Masnick's response over on Techdirt on that. A big swing and a miss which is rare on Oliver's part: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/14/john-olivers-big-whiff-j...

[deleted]

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#64

Post by pitaj »

leotravis10 wrote: post #40

This Techdirt piece describes that lawmakers fixed none of the problems and actually exempts a lot of actual monopolies such as telecom (Example: AT&T and Verizon) and retail (Example: Walmart and Target): https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/27/senator-klobuchar-fixed-...

How the hell are Walmart and Target, stark competitors in the same space, both monopolies?

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#65

Post by gweinberg »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #18
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.

What do you prefer? Vertically bundling monopsonies?

A monopsony is something completely different. A monopoly is a single seller, a monopsony is a single buyer.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#66

Post by logicalmonster »

1) Does anybody have a digestible summary of what the the AICOA actually does and how this law might be abused? In this article they glossed over what effect they think it might have, but I don’t think they simply spelled out what the law actually is, or went over any possible unintended consequences.

2) Whether or not Mozilla’s opinion here is right is something I’m not quite sure about, but what I’m sure about is that Mozilla comes across badly. They lost their extremely big league in the open web by focusing more about woke politics than the tech, and now are whining that they can’t compete. Boo hoo. You have millions and millions of dollars in resources. Build a better browser rather than writing about political censorship and other nonsense you’ve been doing in the past years.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#67

Post by ajvs »

joecool1029 wrote: post #11
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people act like that's some kind of "gotcha"? To me that fact gives it more weight, not less.

At the end of the day their very existence has enabled Google to argue 'We're not an abusive monopoly. See? We fund this very outspoken open web technology company'. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming independence when they are fully dependent on tech giants. The end result is a delay in the courts using already existing antitrust law to address the problem.

Their whole point is that it's not a fair playing field, so independent companies don't stand a chance. Therefore even decently sized companies like Mozilla have to suck on the teat of the Big Tech behemoths.

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#68

Post by ThatPlayer »

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.

I go with the FTC's definition: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Which uses the term monopoly as shorthand for monopoly power, and they define as "a firm with significant and durable market power"

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#69

Post by [deleted] »

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... .

[deleted]

Re: Calling for Antitrust Reform

#70

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #69
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... .

[deleted]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN