Re:Competition, not break-up, is the cure for tech giants’ d...
by mannykannot on Thursday March 14, 2019 @11:35AM
(#19390172)
In many cases, a large company can "hold a gun" to a small company by undercutting it until it acquiesces or goes out of business - see Amazon vs. Quidsi, for example [1]. This may well be proscribed anti-competitive behavior, but the damage is done before the courts rule, even if the startup can afford to see it through the legal process.
And for publicly-owned companies, resisting is rarely feasible because a majority of shareholders will find it to be a risky proposition (and a majority may have invested in hopes of a takeover, anyway.)
It is rare for a startup to grow large enough to challenge an entrenched incumbent in a large market without taking on a majority of investors who are not necessarily committed to fighting for independence.
And for publicly-owned companies, resisting is rarely feasible because a majority of shareholders will find it to be a risky proposition (and a majority may have invested in hopes of a takeover, anyway.)
It is rare for a startup to grow large enough to challenge an entrenched incumbent in a large market without taking on a majority of investors who are not necessarily committed to fighting for independence.
[1] https://www.recode.net/2017/3/29/15112314/amazon-shutting-do...