I heard through the grapevine that in the marketplace agreement, that you must list all products from all channels you have a presence in with the amazon channel to stay in compliance.
why would they do that? Oh probably because Ma Bell uses that data to target which products they want to compete in from their eCommerce company.
Isn't "burning money until you kill competition" inherently illegal?
I assume Uber has the same issue.
The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act.
The FTC also has more information: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
> The Sherman Act outlaws [...] any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize."
If you look at any felony e.g. selling hard drugs there are always mitigating circumstances and exceptions - but they don't invalidate the general rule. The text of section 2 is pretty clear that monopolies are generally illegal.
From the DOJ: Monopolization requires (1) monopoly power and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
- monopolies are illegal since 1890
- excepting natural monopolies (utilities), which are strictly regulated instead
- since the 1980s, also excepting companies that keep prices low for the end consumer. This is the space where Walmart, Amazon and Uber have grown. But, if they try to raise prices substantially OR if enforcement guidelines become more strict again (b/c politics), these giant companies can get into giant legal trouble (see: break-up of AT&T).
Are we in disagreement an any of these points? If you think unregulated monopolies were OK before 1985, can you give any examples? Same for post-1985 unregulated monopolies that raised consumer prices?
If it were illegal to be a monopoly, no firm could ever invent a new product category as they would be a monopoly in that market. There's a hundred years of case law supporting the fact the being a monopoly is not illegal. The US v. Grinnell is one of the big ones, and quoted in the DOJ page I linked to.
https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-were-monopolies-outlawed-...
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-oligopolies-legal-if-monopolie...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
https://www.wired.com/2012/10/antitrust-is-supposed-to-prote...
http://www.girardgibbs.com/antitrust-monopoly/
As another example, Microsoft was found to be a monopoly and to be monopolizing. The result of the case was not that they had to stop being a monopoly, it was that they had to stop the unfair and monopolizing business practices.
Next up: the 18th amendment did not implement Prohibition, since it still allowed alcohol consumption; it merely forbade obtaining it.
The links present a unilateral view of the issue, mainly from lawyers defending big companies. Here's the other side from our longest serving Justice, William O. Douglas [1]:
"We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace - both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace - because of its control of prices. [...] That power can be utilized with lightning speed. It can be benign or it can be dangerous. The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist. For all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy should be in the hands of elected representatives of the people, not in the hands of an industrial oligarchy. Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men. The fact that they are not vicious men but respectable and social minded is irrelevant. That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it."
[1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/495.html