I think the only time one can argue this shouldn't be allowed is for monopolies. Was Facebook considered a monopoly in the space where Instagram was competing in when it made the purchase?
There's no other reason to spend $19B for a company with little to no revenue (and like 3 employees?).
0. Founders would take the risk
1. Early engineers would take the risk
2. Angels/VCs would invest as much in them
In which case you get fewer/none Instagrams/WhatsApps, because the risk is so much higher if your outcomes are limited to IPO/cashflow-business/lifestyle
Sure, Facebook can buy any company they like, but if it presents a danger to its core business like Instagram did, then the sale should not be allowed.
Maybe Instagram wouldn't have survived without being acquired by Facebook, but let the market decide.
I mean there's going to be discovery and depositions so "arguing" an after-the-fact justification is kind of pointless.
Also New York Post already reported that the FTC had documents suggesting the Instagram purchase was to take out a competitor.
>At the center of arguments to block the deal — made by then-FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz — was a document the FTC had uncovered by a high-ranking Facebook executive who said the reason the company was buying Instagram was to eliminate a potential competitor, sources said.
“It was a spectacular document,” one source close to the situation said, declining to say whether Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself had written it.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/26/facebook-boasted-of-buying-ins...