Live data from Hacker News

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#17
post #10

So they want Google’s datasets and search index to be available for other companies and want to prevent Google from being a dominant player in AI based search. I wonder why a VC firm who is quite heavily invested in AI based startups file an amicus brief like that… Edit: before this gets downvoted into oblivion, the comment is not against antitrust enforcement. It’s about VC firms having very specific ideas about wha…

Monopolies prevent startups from reaching critical mass. Google and the rest of big tech are like the Jupiter of the tech world. It clears the orbit of anything else that could form. Big tech is so big that it can jump into new markets with ease, kill incumbents, snuff out new players, and perpetually tax non-innovation. We're twenty years behind on antitrust and breakups. It's time we had a forest fire to make way f…

More than 50 years behind. We shifted policy to barely enforcing anti-trust in the ‘70s, under growing Chicago school (spits) influence among elected officials, “think tanks” (lobbying groups), and courts.

That’s why everything’s so insanely consolidated now. Practically every market has a handful of massive players all of which would currently be under serious threat of break-up under the old approach to enforcement. It’s all monopoly.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#19

None of the proposed remedies benefit consumers.

We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits.

By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rather than spend on engineering or lowering costs, you have to pay to defend your brand.

There are thousands of ways these monopolies are horrible for the consumer, for small business, and for innovation.

These companies force their way into new markets, kill the sustainable incumbents by give away services sustained on unrelated business unit profit, then raise rates once the field has been salted and acquired. Amazon is a grocery store, primary care doctor, home electronics company, and James Bond.

Why should Amazon get free advertising for their films on their web storefront, plastered on the side of their delivery vans, emblazoned on their packaging, when competing studios have to spend millions on marketing? To top it off, they're outsourcing the film crew labor to Eastern Europe where there are no crew safety laws and are putting American film workers out of business.

And the current price pressure on your salary is directly a result of their market power. They don't have to fear you starting a company that can impact their profits anymore.

These companies should all be dismantled. Large companies should be exposed to evolutionary pressures, but because of monopoly they become invasive species and dominate entire ecosystems. Regulation is the path to healthy competition and innovation.

Post reply on HN