Not sure if "wildly emotional" is fair to them either.

> In fairness to Meta: the FTC is the one who initiated this fight, leaving them with the burden of demonstrating it isn't behaving "anti-competitively".

But I agree, the post does seem similar to an individual trying to get attention for their cause, ie. 'Google locked me out...'. To me the tone is probably trying to help sell their narrative of them being this small thing not worth subpoenaing.

> nothing anybody says after this will make me think

This is clearly wildly emotional and (hopefully) hyperbolic.

> SimulaVR is being pretty bad faith in claiming that:...

> Meta pretty clearly intends to compete not just in the gaming VR space but to have general purpose and professional use VR Headsets. Likely all that will come from this is a few internal graphs which include Meta as a competitor in the space.

Part of the antitrust action is determining the boundaries of the market.

If company A has a monopoly in market X, and company B competes in related market Y, ... the fact that company A intends to enter market Y does not mean company B is preventing company A from having a monopoly in market X. (But if X and Y are the same market, they are!)

Right, so you can imagine this evidence would be useful to Meta if the boundaries were drawn differently than how you are imagining.

At the same time, you can imagine that SimulaVR wants to assert "we are not proof META isn't a monopoly". Further, they probably don't want to provide key market information that could aid an aggressive monopolist from leveraging their way into SimulaVR's space.

Simula may not want to hurt meta (a competitor) when that competitor is burning billions in cash to prop up a VR market. They may benefit from a growing consumer awareness and UX research.

What they may or may not desire is less relevant in the face of what external bodies compel them to do

I feel like they should pay SimulaVR's lawyer fees though. Why would SimulaVR be forced to spend resources to help Meta prove it's not a monopoly

It is a thing to bill US Federal LE for data retrieval related to subpoenas and investigations.

It does seem like if there are collateral subpoenas from FTC action, the feds should foot the bill.

This. Further, if any other company or person can be compelled to give up their private data against their will, and perform actions and expend resources and rob from their actual jobs they need to be doing, then it for damned sure shouldn't be in service to anyone who they have no relationship with. The court should be the only ones able to do that, and the government should have to pay for it (meaning you and I of course, which means they should only do it if there is some reason that benefits us all) and any private data strictly controlled and only handled managed by the court or some agreed 3rd party.

It makes no sense at all that any company can use another to defend itself like that.

As far as I can see Meta should hire researchers to assemble data about the state of the market from public data.

Or even further, really whoever is charging Meta should have to bear that burden of collecting that data to prove it.

If corporations are people then they are innocent until proven guilty. If corporations are not people then GREAT! We have a lot of old cases I would love to see unwound that hinged on that ridiculous idea. But they can't be both at different times, and still claim to have a system that has any integrity and that we should respect.

Facebook's asking for too much, business plans from over 100 companies? LOL

The latter is a different target market though.