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

Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#51

Post by threeseed »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #50
threeseed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules. It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days. Because as we've seen time and time…

Regulatory agencies weren't even a thing until the ICC in 1887. People aren't talking about the post office when they complain about regulatory agencies. Now we have all kinds of regulatory agencies making stuff up as they go. Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing "strategic objectives" nor a vast apparatus of administrative law making entities like the the current regulatory agencies.

This is simply wrong.

Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes.

Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#52

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #35
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in…

It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875.

Thanks for your comment, it led me to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_..., which I think gives a very good overview of the history of civil service reforms in the US.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#53

Post by danielmarkbruce »

threeseed wrote: post #51
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory agencies weren't even a thing until the ICC in 1887. People aren't talking about the post office when they complain about regulatory agencies. Now we have all kinds of regulatory agencies making stuff up as they go. Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing "strategic objectives" nor a vast apparatus of administrative law making entities like the the current regulatory agencies.

This is simply wrong. Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes. Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed.

Nope, it's right, every single part.

Right now there are over 100,000 rules in the code of federal regulations across 50 volumes: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR

Here is another link for you: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43056/9?utm_s...

Search for "major rules". Think about those.

They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like dodd-frank, written by incompetent fools who left it so broad that it said both nothing and everything (no constraints in practice) - and is now the source of 100s of rules across various agencies.

Yes, precedent, part of my point. The constitution says nothing about it. The first regulatory agency came about 100 years after the constitution - that isn't by chance.

It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#54

Post by moderatorjerry »

sleepybrett wrote: post #32
moderatorjerry wrote: post #10

Oooooooooooooo. That’s a great news. Microsoft is fucked up company. They should not own office, cloud, GitHub, LinkedIn, crm, gaming, AI, OpenAI, and much more. I hope trump breaks them in thousand pieces.

trump won't do shit once they bribe him. When I voted for harris i was actually voting for lina khan

[dead]

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#55

Post by Dracophoenix »

shmerl wrote: post #17
paxys wrote: post #2

It'll be interesting to see how the new administration deals with all of the big tech antitrust investigations and lawsuits it inherits. On one hand Trump and the Republicans hate these corporations, and would love the opportunity to take them down a notch. On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business. Interesting situation to be in.

Pro-monopoly (that's what "deregulation" in practice means) is not the same as pro-business. It's pro very specific business which wants to have no competition which is very unhealthy for business in general.

Regulation is in fact pro-monopoly. It serves as a cudgel against would-be competitors and keeps incumbents in place even where they would produce worse service at a higher cost. Deregulation as demonstrated in the industries of air travel and telecommunications have produced more competition, not less.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#56

Post by shmerl »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #55
shmerl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro-monopoly (that's what "deregulation" in practice means) is not the same as pro-business. It's pro very specific business which wants to have no competition which is very unhealthy for business in general.

Regulation is in fact pro-monopoly. It serves as a cudgel against would-be competitors and keeps incumbents in place even where they would produce worse service at a higher cost. Deregulation as demonstrated in the industries of air travel and telecommunications have produced more competition, not less.

Is this some kind of joke? Air travel and telecommunications had some of the worst consolidations over time. Nothing good came out of it precisely due to decrease in competition.

This reminds me 1984 with its war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

Now add to that your "monopoly is free market" koolaid.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#58

Post by netsharc »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #33
netsharc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business. Oh, honey[1]. If the apparatchik remains spineless and lets them get away with it, there'll be some remnants the supposed agenda, but I think the real agenda is whatever makes them money. Already people close to him are charging others for access to him/cushy jobs[2]. Gosh, I'm trying to re-find…

It sounds like your conspiracy theory is that Trump is just trying to pull off a big payday? I won't demean you by suggesting that you're unaware of the absurdity in that. As to giving free hotel stays to the government, I'm not well attuned to the conduct of the ultra-rich, but in the reasonably comfortable ranks of the GS-teens, I assure you no one is lining up to spend his own money to make government work, despit…

Oh, honey...

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#59

Post by johneth »

dlcarrier wrote: post #47

Will we finally end up splitting them into MICROS~1 AND MICROS~2? Also, splitting off Internet Explorer turned out to be entirely unnecessary, it died of stagnation all on its own.

It took a decade to die. And another decade to decay away enough to stop having to support it.

Re: Microsoft Faces Broad Antitrust Investigation from US FTC

#60

Post by Dracophoenix »

shmerl wrote: post #56
Dracophoenix wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is in fact pro-monopoly. It serves as a cudgel against would-be competitors and keeps incumbents in place even where they would produce worse service at a higher cost. Deregulation as demonstrated in the industries of air travel and telecommunications have produced more competition, not less.

Is this some kind of joke? Air travel and telecommunications had some of the worst consolidations over time. Nothing good came out of it precisely due to decrease in competition. This reminds me 1984 with its war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Now add to that your "monopoly is free market" koolaid.

Prior to the 1980s, the government price-fixed airline tickets and legally instituted AT&T as the sole national carrier of the country. Legal mandates against price competition and the entry of new competitors into a national market is not a free market. If you've been able to have conversations with someone on the other side of the world at little to no cost or you've enjoyed multiple trips across world without breaking the bank, then you've benefited from the deregulation of these industries.
Post reply on HN