Elizabeth Warren would break up big tech companies

Feb 2017
300
105
Cerritos
You do know that monopolies are subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act and the crime relates to contracts and conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce and "monopoly" does not require complete dominance, right?

Our Documents - Transcript of Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)

Monopolization Defined

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.
Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.
Exclusionary Conduct
Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.
Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct.
Business Justification
Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."
Example: The Microsoft Case
Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers. Microsoft was able to use its dominant position in the operating systems market to exclude other software developers and prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software to run with Microsoft's operating system software. Specifically, Microsoft illegally maintained its operating systems monopoly by including Internet Explorer, the Microsoft Internet browser, with every copy of its Windows operating system software sold to computer makers, and making it technically difficult not to use its browser or to use a non-Microsoft browser. Microsoft also granted free licenses or rebates to use its software, which discouraged other software developers from promoting a non-Microsoft browser or developing other software based on that browser. These actions hampered efforts by computer makers to use or promote competing browsers, and discouraged the development of add-on software that was compatible with non-Microsoft browsers. The court found that, although Microsoft did not tie up all ways of competing, its actions did prevent rivals from using the lowest-cost means of taking market share away from Microsoft. To settle the case, Microsoft agreed to end certain conduct that was preventing the development of competing browser software.
Nice job, Biff. Now, we shall see what Google and Facebook have violated antitrust laws.

Sent from my 5049W using Tapatalk
 
Dec 2015
15,484
14,386
Arizona
NatMorton seems to be unable to assimilate new info. He is arguing based on his bias, not his knowledge.
The bottom line is that this sort of issue, while apparent to the consuming public, will require complex litigation to resolve.
Nat is nit-picking. He wants to focus on the "REAL" meaning---the deeper, more profound meaning (LOL) of "MONOPOLY".
Ergo, being No. 1 doesn't matter. Controlling 99% of the market doesn't matter.
Apparently, he's some kind of purist--a person who insists on absolute adherence? AND for what? A something-something statement coming from a presidential candidate who will never occupy Lincoln's bedroom? For a notion--a spray and pray?

People like Nat never back down. Never admit they just MIGHT be mistaken. It's called RW superiority syndrome.
 
Dec 2018
2,140
680
New England
You do realize that Facebook owns three major social media platforms right?

Facebook and Google pretty much own the internet and are integrated into everything in a really creepy way.
"Creepy" is subjective. The definition of a monopoly really isn't. They're not monopolies as neither has exclusive hold on any of their markets.
 
Dec 2018
2,140
680
New England
Nat is nit-picking. He wants to focus on the "REAL" meaning---the deeper, more profound meaning (LOL) of "MONOPOLY".
Ergo, being No. 1 doesn't matter. Controlling 99% of the market doesn't matter.
Apparently, he's some kind of purist--a person who insists on absolute adherence? AND for what? A something-something statement coming from a presidential candidate who will never occupy Lincoln's bedroom? For a notion--a spray and pray?

People like Nat never back down. Never admit they just MIGHT be mistaken. It's called RW superiority syndrome.
No what he is is rational, something sorely lacking among many of you who are buying Warren's BS on this issue.

And when you can demonstrate how any of these companies possess exclusive hold on their markets, I'll acknowledge I'm wrong on this point. Let me know when you think you can muster and argument that is based on something other than your personal dislike for these companies.
 
Nov 2018
3,639
1,780
Inner Space
"Creepy" is subjective. The definition of a monopoly really isn't. They're not monopolies as neither has exclusive hold on any of their markets.
The key here to NatMorton's argument is to arbitrarily create a definition and then claim that the social media companies are not "monopolies" (per the NM definition). Microsoft was never a monopoly per NM's definition, but still was successfully litigated.
No what he is is rational, something sorely lacking among many of you who are buying Warren's BS on this issue.

And when you can demonstrate how any of these companies possess exclusive hold on their markets, I'll acknowledge I'm wrong on this point. Let me know when you think you can muster and argument that is based on something other than your personal dislike for these companies.
The issue is that the businesses do not have to have "exclusive" control. That is your arbitrary standard, NatMorton.
 
Dec 2015
15,484
14,386
Arizona
No what he is is rational, something sorely lacking among many of you who are buying Warren's BS on this issue.

And when you can demonstrate how any of these companies possess exclusive hold on their markets, I'll acknowledge I'm wrong on this point. Let me know when you think you can muster and argument that is based on something other than your personal dislike for these companies.

If I was in the same room with you, Nat, by now I'd need HIP BOOTS.
Here's the problem, my friend. You are so so so so busy defining monopoly you've made assumptions.
Assumption #1) Clara and friends support Lizzy Warren and her wild and crazy ideas...TOTALLY. #2) Our DTT discussion will have a major impact on what Lizzy does/says and what the courts say #3) I need to "MUSTER" AND ARGUMENT (as if).
#4) I have a personal dislike for these companies, when IN FACT---I ❤️these companies. LOVE them!
 
Jul 2014
14,119
8,573
massachusetts
Explain how much is the social media giant be costing.

Sent from my 5049W using Tapatalk
You supply your information
"Creepy" is subjective. The definition of a monopoly really isn't. They're not monopolies as neither has exclusive hold on any of their markets.
Your lack of economic education is looming large.
Monopoly pricing practices are observed when 4 firms control 50% of a market.
 

Similar Discussions