Hacker News Reader

Comment by causal | Hacker News Reader

If it creates a monopoly then no, it's not okay, no matter how normal.

Not necessarily - as it is written, the Sherman anti-trust act and all of the amendments distinguishes between "innocent" and "coercive" monopolies. But the definitions are very loose and hard to pin down.

It's hard to even consistently distinguish a monopoly - is it market share? Earning power? Barriers to entry?

> It's hard to even consistently distinguish a monopoly - is it market share? Earning power? Barriers to entry?

"I know it when I see it," as it is difficult at best to rely on distinctive actions or indicators considering the fluidity of business dynamics and the market landscape.

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

The definitions mean whatever the judge says they mean.

As soon as they formalized a metric to distinguish a monopoly, it would become something deliberately managed by entities who wished to wield monopolistic power.

It would change the shape, but not the definition.

> But the definitions are very loose and hard to pin down.

So are a lot of laws and regulations. Doesn't make them any less valid.

Damn, someone tell the Justice Department that Nvidia exists.

Does Nvidia negotiate deals for all gaming + crypto + AI companies to use their cards, or do they just provide good hardware + software that consumers want to use?

That would be the difference of an anti-competition monopoly vs just a monopoly.

Exactly. Google capitalized on its monopoly status. That's what matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com