Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peter S's avatar

I am not a lawyer, but I think your point is both narrowly correct and also beside the point. The standard of concern is not whether something is or is not “a monopoly”. It’s whether someone becomes so large in a given market that they can (and do) engage in anti-competitive behavior. So in Microsoft’s case, the issue wasn’t having 90% market share in PC OS, it was leveraging that position to force PC makers to advantage Office and Explorer to the detriment of Netscape, Lotus, Corel etc who they saw as threats. People are using the term “monopoly” as a shorthand for “big enough to effectively engage in anticompetitive behavior absent oversight” which I think is fair. That said it is incumbent on the would-be regulators to describe exactly what behavior is inappropriate and a lot of what people criticize about Amazon I would agree with Matt is just fair business.

Expand full comment
Thomas L. Hutcheson's avatar

Very sensible, but it does not deal with two other aspects of bigness/monopoly: buying up of potential competitors before they can compete (Facebook-Instagram) and buying of a competitive firm by an actual monopoly (Verizon-content provider).

Expand full comment
230 more comments...

No posts