Hacker News Reader

Comment by lioeters | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand how this acquisition is not anti-competitive behavior. It was such a joy to see Figma's growth and technical innovation, and now it will just get eaten by the established power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Inc.#Anti-competitive_pr...

View on HN

I don't think "the government" does anything unless someone complains. In this case, the process is to send a letter requesting a "Business Review" [1]. It's probably a "fill out this simple 30 page form, wait 2.5 years (max!) and then have your review request politely declined" situation, but I suppose it's foolish to complain before trying. It feels like one of those processes that costs lawyer money that another business would usually pay for; however it's not clear what business would pay for this - maybe a heavy user of Figma? But then even if you 'win' and stop the sale, doesn't that alienate you from the founders?

1 - https://www.justice.gov/atr/business-reviews

This is not correct. There will almost certainly be a second request issued by the FTC or DOJ in this matter, and my guess is that it will almost certainly get challenged by one of those agencies. [1] In building their case, the agencies will reach out to users and competitors of the companies. Adobe and Figma know that this merger will certainly be contentious on antitrust issues, and I bet there is a large breakup fee that Adobe would have to pay for Figma if the merger was blocked for this reason.

[1]: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Anyone here can lodge this simple form. If you think this merger will substantially lesson competition and stifle innovation lodge a complaint: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation

At a minimum, they will investigate this and make inquiries (typically within months) if they see a high volume of complaints.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

"Some mergers change market dynamics in ways that can lead to higher prices, fewer or lower-quality goods or services, or less innovation.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." "

Just filed a complaint! I didn't know this form existed, as I've never genuinely wanted to file an antitrust complaint before, but there's a first time for everything and I despise Adobe so it gets the honor of being in my first FTC complaint.

I'm happy to submit a form or complaint. I stopped doing business with Adobe years ago and this is the second product they've bought out from underneath me since then, the first being Substance.

That said, I don't know a ton about antitrust laws and imagine they need something specific. Does anybody have a clear idea what the actual breaches that I should be complaining about are?

Did you see this link? This provides an overview of anti trust laws regarding mergers https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Acquiring a competitor isn't going to automatically trigger antitrust laws. For one, web design is so far from critical infrastructure that it's just unlikely to be on their radar. And secondly, there's still a ton of competition. Even if Adobe and Figma are the two leaders, there's still loads of alternatives available. You can still use Sketch or Canva or any of the all-in-one beginner tools like Squarespace.

It is. Unfortunately our laws against anti-competitive behaviours are very weak.

thankfully, there is also Europe!

Unfortunately I am European! IMO our anti-competition laws are weak even here.

It's not anti-competitive because there are plenty of other options available (and anyone can go and make their own if they're willing to invest the time).

Anti-competitive would assume that there's no other viable option or means for replacement.

FWIW, I think Adobe is a shit company but calling daddy government in to thump them for (presumably) taking away or breaking the favorite toy sets a terrible precedent. If anything, this is pro-competitive because it should light a fire under the ass of indie's to replace it (which is already underway by the looks of Penpot).

> but calling daddy government

I pay for them, I may as well try to get them to do something that benefits me for the astronomical taxes I'll be paying this year.

Giving them more power isn't the way to do that. It hurts you long-term because you're basically saying that individuals/companies are not responsible enough to make decisions on their own (and need the government to step in).

Today they're helping you, tomorrow they're increasing your taxes to pay for their "increased efforts in policing anti-competitive behavior in private industry."

It's a beach made of quicksand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com