undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmeany3y ago0 comments

Are you suggesting that Adobe and Figma executives should be criminally charged with an attempt to monopolize the market?

Edit: I looked up the justice department’s stance. From: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

The Sherman Antitrust Act

This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which are punishable as criminal felonies.

The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.

The Act, however, is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; in that case, competition is working properly.

0 comments

oldgradstudent3y ago

Yes. Or at least join the queue.

It it turns out, as almost everyone suspects, that Adobe is buying Figma not because Figma will be a source of revenue, but mainly to prevent competition, then it's a clear violation of the Sherman antitrust act and should be punished accordingly.

Before then in the front of the queue should be companies like Uber whose entire business plan was dumping to destroy the existing taxi industry, and then have the monopoly power to raise prices.

That's a pure monopoly play.

meanyOP3y ago

I think the bar for criminal prosecution is much higher than than "everyone suspects." It needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt, which I think is a harder case to make. You'd need documented evidence that that was the goal. Otherwise, I think it would be pretty easy for lawyers to create some level of doubt. I doubt the justice department could win that in a court of law.

oldgradstudent3y ago

The main obstacle is the will to enforce the law.

In the Silicon Valley wage suppression cartel, there were tons of evidence, including evidence that indicated intent, and awareness of the illegality.

Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, even wrote stuff like:

> I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?

All they got was a measly fine.

Obama DOJ had no will to criminally prosecute even with ample evidence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

oldgradstudent3y ago

Yes. Or at least join the queue.

Before then in the front of the queue should be companies like Uber whose entire business plan was dumping to destroy the existing taxi industry, and then have the monopoly power to raise prices.

That's a pure monopoly play.

meanyOP3y ago

oldgradstudent3y ago

The main obstacle is the will to enforce the law.

In the Silicon Valley wage suppression cartel, there were tons of evidence, including evidence that indicated intent, and awareness of the illegality.

Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, even wrote stuff like:

> I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?

All they got was a measly fine.

Obama DOJ had no will to criminally prosecute even with ample evidence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse