News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search. Parent comment

Re:Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search by legitster on Monday August 05, 2024 @03:49PM (#41164824)
Not necessarily - as it is written, the Sherman anti-trust act and all of the amendments distinguishes between "innocent" and "coercive" monopolies. But the definitions are very loose and hard to pin down.

It's hard to even consistently distinguish a monopoly - is it market share? Earning power? Barriers to entry?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search by toomuchtodo on Monday August 05, 2024 @03:57PM (#41164912)
> It's hard to even consistently distinguish a monopoly - is it market share? Earning power? Barriers to entry?

"I know it when I see it," as it is difficult at best to rely on distinctive actions or indicators considering the fluidity of business dynamics and the market landscape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search by ssl-3 on Monday August 05, 2024 @04:09PM (#41165063)
The definitions mean whatever the judge says they mean.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search by svnt on Monday August 05, 2024 @04:24PM (#41165213)
As soon as they formalized a metric to distinguish a monopoly, it would become something deliberately managed by entities who wished to wield monopolistic power.

It would change the shape, but not the definition.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Loses DOJ Antitrust Suit Over Search by j_maffe on Monday August 05, 2024 @06:40PM (#41166272)
> But the definitions are very loose and hard to pin down.

So are a lot of laws and regulations. Doesn't make them any less valid.

[ Parent | on HN ]