Yes. The thresholds are insanely high - like 1 in 8 people use it. Literally. 50 million US MAU or 1 billion worldwide (a smaller threshold of 100k business customers). And a market cap of 550 billion dollars (which automatically adjusts with inflation).

> which automatically adjusts with inflation)

For reference:

> adjusted for inflation on the basis of the Consumer Price Index;

Hmm... I wonder if this sort of verbiage might make much more of an impact on a hundred million working class Americans' lives if it were applied to other sections of the US Code...

"It could but not alone but it helps." coming from an stranger in the Internet working in one of the few countries where salary is adjusted for inflation.

Linux has more than 50 million US MAU, no?

Not as an online platform, no. Or at least not as one owned by the Linux Foundation or Linus.

AICOA 2(a)(9):

  ONLINE PLATFORM.—The term “online platform” means a website, online or mobile application, operating system, digital assistant, or online service that—

  (A) enables a user to generate content that can be viewed by other users on the platform or to interact with other content on the platform;

  (B) facilitates the offering, advertising, sale, purchase, payment, or shipping of products or services, including software applications, between and among consumers or businesses not controlled by the platform operator; or

  (C) enables user searches or queries that access or display a large volume of information.

It's an "operating system" that certainly meets (C) and arguably meets (A) and (B) as well.

Right, Linux might count, but what is the "Linux Corporation" with the 50,000,000 MAU? It's not "is the program used by that many people" it's "does the company or individual have that many users". That's also why the company needs a market cap of more than 550 billion.

So I guess it would hit Android and maybe FireOS Linuxes.

> It's not "is the program used by that many people" it's "does the company or individual have that many users".

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The bill doesn't actually define "monthly active", so you should construe it as liberally as possible when wargaming possible ways it might be used in practice.

> That's also why the company needs a market cap of more than 550 billion.

Check the conjunction between (II)(aa) and (II)(bb). It's 'or'. If you have 1B global MAU (again, Linux), the $550B threshold is irrelevant.

Linux is a kernel, on its own it does not meet any of these criteria. An "operating system" would be something like Debian or Ubuntu, and at least the latter one has already had scandals regarding advertising.

Unless operating system is clearly defined, I absolutely would not assume that it must mean something more than kernel. These are legal stipulations, they are meant to be interpreted by an audience. They're not meant to be razor-thin in what they cover.

Does that make it any better? "Oh, hey, here's this absolutely horrible law, but don't worry, it only applies if you're successful."

Yes, if the intent is to regulate monopolies.

You know what you call a small cap monopoly?

Not a monopoly.

Let's say I make a miracle drug for people with a rare disease, patent it, and it costs $0.01 to produce, and I'll watch people die unless they pay me >$1M.

Am I a monopoly since I only have a few million in revenue?

Under WTO rules, pharmaceutical patents are subject to compulsory licensing meaning a competitor would be allowed to use your patent whether you like it or not. Yes you would be entitled to a royalty but the rate is unlikely to be as egregious as 1 million dollars per unit.

Not in the sense that we're worried about here.

I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out, but we're using "monopoly" in the sense of "monopolistic abuse specifically enabled by large revenue and/or platform gatekeeping."

Whether you think other kinds of monopolies are a problem or not is immaterial, because we're talking about a specific type of monopoly, that a number of us do have a problem with.

I have several friends who work in antitrust consulting. My understanding from listening to them talk is that monopolists are defined with respect to a market, and defining the relevant market is a task in itself. Surely the defining characteristic of a monopolist is that it has a high proportion of the market share for a given market, and it is not required that the market in question be large? You can have a monopoly over a small market.

Afaik, that's the (modern, post-1918, [0]) definition of a monopoly under Sherman Antitrust Act (of 1890).

And specifically, that a monopoly's nature and actions "[must] suppress or even destroy competition." Think duck typing.

Unfortunately, US vs ATT was never decided, as ATT volunteered to be broken up in 1982.

But the broader approach seems to have been that small monopolies are not harmful to the public good, as they face the potential of competitors (sometimes, larger ones) expanding from unrelated fields into their business.

It's only when a successful company leverages its success into a size (and dominance) that makes competition impossible that it becomes a legally actionable monopoly (by restricting even the possibility of competition).

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._Un...

Ooh, I didn't know this. I will go to the next discussion with my antitrust friends armed with my new info. Thanks for sharing this!

If you create such a miracle drug why on earth would we want a policy that lets people die?

It seems like the system in fact pushed back on Martin's pricing

He only got reprimanded because of how braizen we was, accepting news interviews and showing no remorse for the insane price increase. Without the news focus he probably would've avoided jail time (he was just released last month serving over 4 years of his 7 year sentence).

ehh... the whole idea for this bill is to prevent use of advantages gained from monopoly to create additional monopolies.