Hacker News Reader

Comment by asciimov | Hacker News Reader

You go after Google first, because they have had such dominance the longest. Anybody else would just argue "What about Google?"

As friendly as Facebook has been to the republican party, it doesn't surprise me that they aren't first in line to be prosecuted, if ever.

View on HN

Meanwhile at Luxottica... absolutely nothing.

It would be nice if there were open source prescription lens designing tools, and plans for cnc lens crafters/3d lens printers.

A good start would be defining a set of standard lens sizes so people could at least easily find and print replacement frames.

Because Anti-Trust wise Luxottica is less of an issue as long as they don't abuse their market power when it comes to sunglasses. they could, if they did stuff like forcing retailer into certain deals and conditions. But unles sthey do things seem to be fne.

OK. How about this:

"Meanwhile <any phone/mobile/internet/health-insurance provider> nothing"

These are all problems, I'm just happy that there's an appetite for anti-trust action at all at the federal level. Let's also not forget that phone service providers already had a round of anti-trust back in 1982[1], though it seems like legislators have forgotten why that occurred and let many of the baby Bells re-merge in recent years.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T#Breakup_and_reformation...

They absolutely do. They're the debeers of the glasses industry. They make your glasses, they make your lenses, they run your vision plan/program. Every optician ever has to sign with them to get the standard selection, as does any name brand that wants their brand licenced.

But even beyond that, regional monopolies for carriers are somehow okay?

I think it's just rent seeking/retributions for favours not rendered.

I mean do you know how Luxottica acquired Oakley?

Well, not exactly. If there is something fishy behind it, Luxotcca definetly deserves a clap on the fingers at least.

How did they acquire Oakley? I don't remember any major controversy at the time, and reading a few news articles and Wikipedia, it just reads like any other corporate merger.

the short story is Oakley wasn't interested in being acquired, but since Luxottica owns most of the sunglasses stores you've heard of, was able to turn the screws on Oakley by refusing to stock their product, causing it's share price to tank and enabled Luxottica to buy Oakley cheap.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/agoodman/2014/07/16/theres-more...

Which is shitty behavior. Thanks for mentioning it.

> Luxottica purchased Sunglass Hut in early 2001. It promptly told Oakley it wanted to pay significantly lower wholesale prices or it would reduce its orders and push its own brands instead.

> Within months, Oakley acknowledged to shareholders that the talks hadn't gone well and that Luxottica was slashing its orders.

> The company's stock immediately lost more than a third of its value.

https://boingboing.net/2019/03/12/luxottica.html

The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona.

> The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona.

It's on Wikipedia:

"Luxottica acquired Oakley in November 2007 for US$2.1 billion. Oakley had tried to dispute their prices because of Luxottica's large marketshare, and Luxottica responded by dropping Oakley from their stores, causing their stock price to drop, followed by Luxottica's hostile take over of the company."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica

There's even a sub-section on "Monopolistic pricing practices".

Oops, I based that on the Oakley wikipedia article (which only mentions vague antitrust concerns[1]) and the parent's ignorance about Luxxotica's purchase of Oakley (I assumed he looked at the Wikipedia article).

[1] > Luxottica's acquisition of Oakley has been criticized as potential violation of Antitrust laws. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc.)

I did read that section, but it's not immediately clear to me that those two things are causally related. Yes, Luxxotica cut Oakley out of their stores and Oakley stock lost a lot of value. But, Luxxotica bought Oakley 6 years later. Where's the link exactly? Did Oakley's stock continue to decline? Was there shareholder demand to sell?

I was in the US Army in the time surrounding the purchase. The amount of Oakley product that was purchased by both the government and individual soldiers should have been enough to keep Oakley afloat all on its own.

What can the doj do to an Italian company

Shut down their US operations. Bar them from partnering with US corporations.

Facebook has been so friendly to the republican party that they immediately blocked sharing of accusations against Joe Biden for impropriety while serving as the Vice President of the United States. Oh I forgot though... simply allowing republicans to speak online is nowadays akin to full on support for the GOP platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com