Hacker News Reader

Comment by toasterlovin | Hacker News Reader

The only reason bundling IE was an issue is because Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems. The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action.

View on HN

> The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action.

If it is, it shouldn't be, and we need some similarly concise term for "action to eliminate biased incentives and promote competition for the good of the individual".

Yes it should be. Otherwise the government would have it's grubby hands in every deal, because power begets the desire for more power. Amazon has plenty competition

> promote competition for the good of the individual

C'mon, this is ridiculous. There is no need to promote competition when competition already exists. Hence a monopoly (or cartel) being a necessary precondition of antitrust action.

Competition free of biased incentives, but I thought that would be too wordy. Or simply products and services free of biased incentives would be fine too.

Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Have you actually considered how house brands might be beneficial to consumers?

Let me explain. I just did a search for "lightning cable" on Amazon. I don't want to pay $19, or whatever it would cost, to buy an Apple branded lightning cable. So I'm going to go for something cheaper. The top result is by Amazon Basics. Then we have YUNSONG, PLmuzsz, and KRISLOG. I have no idea what those are. I have no idea if I'm going to get a steaming pile of inauthentic shit. But with Amazon Basics, I can at least feel confident that they did a reasonable job of finding and vetting a factory to source the product from. And, more importantly, that they have a vested interest in me having a good experience, since Amazon Basics is Amazon.

> Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done?

Generally no, but I don't think a monopoly is a prerequisite for biased incentives to cause consumer harm, particularly for platform companies. Consumers don't have to choose between a bunch of non-monopoly platforms that aren't acting in their best interest when they can collectively decide, via their government, to force the platforms to do as they want.

This is speaking generally - I don't actually have any problem with the specific case of Amazon promoting their AmazonBasics brands.

It’s not at all. All sorts of anti-competitive behaviour is regulated under the broad banner of “antitrust” law. The Sherman Act doesn’t even prohibit every different type of monopoly for that matter.

Microsoft had a monopoly, and they leveraged it to create a monopoly, but that does not mean abuse requires a monopoly. Abuse does not require emulating any particular prior instance of abuse.

I don't know why you keep using the term "abuse". There's no statute in antitrust law preventing "abuse". There isn't even a statute defining "abuse".

Antitrust laws specifically address using monopoly power to restrain competition.

But the abuse only becomes a problem when a monopoly creates a lack of alternatives for consumers or suppliers. Amazon sellers have a plethora of other retailers who they can use to reach customers if they don't like Amazon's behavior. Netscape had no such options.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com