141–150 of 284 posts
> The judge indicated during the trial that he wasn’t buying Shapiro’s projection. After his testimony, Leon said he was "confused." Further explanation from Shapiro didn’t help. "I’m not sure I got it, but it’s too late and too hot to belabor the point any further," the judge said. Amazing on so many different levels. (Shapiro is the economist whose model the DOJ based their case off of).
Absolutely shameful. AI judges can't come soon enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On top of all that, with the end of NN, AT&T can preferentially shove TWX content in your face, and force you to pay extra to consume someone else's. Will they though? I don’t recall such a thing happening prior to NN. It always seems that people’s fantasies about what can happen without NN are worse than what will (or did).
Remember when AT&T blocked FaceTime because it competed with their own product? I do.
But for some reason, they weren’t worried about other video chatting apps - for instance you could use Yahoo Messenger at the time. What competing app did AT&T have?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/atandt-l...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if the edge case is possible, it will happen By that argument, you will: * beat your wife * murder an enemy * shoot up a school full of children * commit arson * jump bail * evade arrest * die in a hail of bullets So, assuming all those eventualities, why shouldn't we just put you to death now? To spare you the rhetorical exercise, the answer is because we don't punish you for the things you might do, but only puni…
I think we're getting a little sidetracked here. What the grandparent wanted to say was just that the corset of laws that binds a judge might not be as tight as you think; hence e.g. activist judges.
That said, whether or not an activist judge allows a presumptively lawful merger to occur is hardly a hill worth dying on. We have remedies for activist judges through an appeal process. Where an appeals process is not available after the merger, we have remedy for anti-competitive companies through regulatory influence, regulatory agency, rule of law, and a court system to back that up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the DOJ's motives were completely tainted by Trump's hostility toward CNN.
I get what you're saying, but that shouldn't matter in a sane world. This merger is bad news for the citizenry.
It is. And had it been successfully blocked, the message would be clearly understood by media outlet owners far beyond CNN's owner.
It is in fact lose-lose.
Same goes for whatever ends up happening to Amazon/WaPo.
This is the only anti-trust you can expect to see now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The merger is set to close next Monday. DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. I think the DOJ will just take it as a loss.
> DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. What would they have to lose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The merger is set to close next Monday. DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. I think the DOJ will just take it as a loss.
> DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. What would they have to lose?
Their professional reputations.
It seems like every commercial actor wants to be the platform (add "value" as an integrator/provider), and avoid being abstracted out under the platform. "Internet is just a dumb pipe" "Why dont all PCs ship with just a vanilla Windows install" OR "Why don't all smartphones just install vanilla Android" "The programmer is irrelevant" "The OS is irrelevant" "The browser used is irrelevant" "Cable providers are irrelev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time Warner the ISP was bought years ago. This is Time Warner the entertainment company.
AT&T is an ISP. They also own DirecTV, and now CNN and associated media entities.