Hacker News Reader

Comment by nknight | Hacker News Reader

15 USC §1:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."

Such is the very first sentence of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Getting convictions can be a pain in the ass, and there are many things that could be violations but are not usually treated as such in practice, but the statute in theory is very broad, and the general principle is that actions which seriously harm competition in a market are unlawful. The acts do not have to be specifically enumerated in advance.

View on HN

I am unfamiliar with many of the details of US laws, but does signing a special deal to offer a new product with 1 exclusive partner mean you have to offer it to everyone?

In the physical world many companies have patented processes that they don't offer to others.

I am not a lawyer, but I think unless there is existing case law there will be enough points for the case to go on for many many many years making the point moot.

The rules are different if you are a monopoly. If not then you certainly can do things like that.

> I am unfamiliar with many of the details of US laws, but does signing a special deal to offer a new product with 1 exclusive partner mean you have to offer it to everyone?

If the deal hurts competition in a market, the deal may be illegal, yes.

> In the physical world many companies have patented processes that they don't offer to others.

Which may or may not harm competition in an identifiable market. Compulsory patent licensing regimes are sometimes forced upon companies in the US as a result of antitrust action, and other countries sometimes have general compulsory licensing schemes that are always in effect.

Are you confusing "harming a competitor" with "harming competition"? They're not the same thing.

> I am not a lawyer, but I think unless there is existing case law there will be enough points for the case to go on for many many many years making the point moot.

Major antitrust cases always take years. Any major litigation takes years. The first AT&T antitrust case in the late 40s/early 50s took 7 years to settle, and the second one, which broke the company up, took eight. Those didn't even go to trial.

The lawsuit will take years while microsoft will make sure the litigants go bankrupt.

Unfortunately there primary businesses are based on selling Microsoft Software Services, and while it would almost certainly result in Microsoft being fined eventually... I am pretty certain they will do the same thing in the 90s and just kill the vendors who are going after them. Raise a few SKU prices for that kind of market, make the companies unprofitable.

You're very confused about how antitrust cases usually shape up, and how bankruptcy works.

First, assuming a private antitrust lawsuit is brought against Microsoft by a company that then enters bankruptcy proceedings, it is very possible the case would continue long after the company ceases ordinary operations. A lawsuit doesn't become moot just because one party is "dead".

Second, "the litigants" could ultimately end up including the US Department of Justice, various state attorneys general, the European Commission, and possibly other competition authorities around the world. These are entities with vast powers and resources, and the risk to Microsoft is potentially billions of dollars, if not its very existence.

Sure, I understand that it can happen... but at the end of the day who is the one still standing. Microsoft gets fined, the investors who stuck through the bankruptcy get paid... but the competitor is DEAD.

Is it more expensive then buying a company... most likely, but it stops the entire market space moving forward. Microsoft knew they were violating anti-trust with the browser but they still did it. In doing so they delayed any move towards the "Networked computer" model that everyone was saying was the future.

To protect the crown jewels (windows + office) I am pretty sure Microsoft will sacrifice it all to maintain that monopoly. Like Nero in Rome, they will let it burn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com