Comment by seydor
2 days ago
I can't help thinking that a lot of anticompetitive cases will be won outside the US now that the US is in all-out trade war with the rest of the universe.
2 days ago
I can't help thinking that a lot of anticompetitive cases will be won outside the US now that the US is in all-out trade war with the rest of the universe.
The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years - at a significant harm to a lot of people.
The implied corruption is likely not from these other countries that start making these cases now, but is a persistent feature of US governance.
> The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years
Lina Khan's FTC brought cases again Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Mastercard, and more. They also prevented mergers (consolidations) in a lot of different industries. Could they have accomplished more? Certainly, but they did certainly did display a willingness to bring antitrust cases.
It does feel like Lina Khan's FTC was much more willing to play the part in the adversarial system. Don't necessarily agree with every decision but was surprising to see how willing the FTC was to jump into things and make unpopular (to stakeholders at least) decisions
> Could they have accomplished more?
unfortunately a lot of these things are on an election cycle.
One of the main problems in the US is that the US has an extremely broad antitrust statute:
> Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.
> Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, ...
It was passed in the era of robber barons and meant to be a strong hammer against anti-competitive practices. But because it was so broad, the courts kept chipping away at it over time through reinterpretation because by its terms it would prohibit a lot of things the courts didn't really want to get involved in policing, or they just made bad calls in years when the Court's majority wasn't that smart.
Meanwhile monopolists generally have a lot of money to pay expensive lawyers, so they structure their activities to fit within the loopholes the courts have carved out over the years and that makes it hard for an administration to hold them to account even when they have the will to do it.
Hyper-partisanship also makes this worse, because if everyone is convinced the other side is pure evil then they're going to try to undo anything the other party was trying to do without even considering what it is, which isn't compatible with long-term prosecutions that would have to span administrations.
The sentiment i picked up from HN is that she was more of an activist leader with a grudge against big corporations and that this clouded her judgement. The cases she bought were insubstantial and fell apart. She's a bad poster child for what the FTC should be.
3 replies →
This could not be more wrong. Lena Khan is on an absolute antitrust bender.
i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech
> i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech
I don't like the way this is phrased because it nearly implies that doing this is an advantage to the US population.
"Preventing foreign dominance in tech" is plausibly a legitimate goal. Preventing a foreign tech monopoly is a good thing. But the assumption that this can only be achieved by a domestic one is the fallacy. A domestic monopoly is still a disadvantage compared to a competitive market with a multitude of domestic companies.
Unless you're an authoritarian that wants to leverage the monopoly for the purposes of e.g. censorship. But then you're an enemy whose goal is to harm even the domestic population.
9 replies →
It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or selling them right before tariffs hit.
It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something, and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these monopolies.
9 replies →
All those Silicon Valley types went to Washington to kiss the ring of the pope.
And give gold idols
[flagged]
Precisely. Trump not smart enough to think about these retaliations. Would in some cases make tarrifs neutral
Big Tech isn't exactly Trump's base. Trump collects wins[1] for his base at the expense of his non-supporters. Not sure how this makes Trump "not smart".
1 - Regardless of what you think of tariffs, his base largely considers them wins.
7 replies →
You're also about to see a lot of the 'Brussels effect' due to the EUs DMA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
I think what might happen is all these other markets are going to end up “playing fair” while the US remains an abused ecosystem- because it’ll be the only place left Apple and Google can push their advantage.
I strongly doubt that US-Australia trade relationships played any role in the judges decision on this case (and, of course, everything else in this case occurred before Trump was even re-elected). Judges aren't in a role where they are negotiating, or particularly care about, international trade at all. Judges are intentionally separated from the political wing of the state in just about every western democracy.
I agree with this. I think potentially someone may have suggested the federal court sit on the decision until the 10% tariff was confirmed a couple of weeks ago. Mostly because the announcement pre Tariff might have resulted in a long Truth Social post from DT followed by a knee jerk reaction. But I highly doubt it would factor into the decision.
Australia is also in the process of regulating platforms and I'd expect it to end up a little closer to Europe/Japan in the next couple of years anyway. They will watch to see what loopholes Apple/Google exploit and try to deal with that in the regulations upfront.
Important context for anyone not aware is that Australia is one of the few countries that US runs a large trade surplus with.
In some ways you are probably right, however do not discount the fact that America’s relative weakness has opened up avenues for this type of action that otherwise would have likely not happened out of internal pressure due to concerns about that relationship, external pressure on the government to scuttle these kinds of efforts, and/or general lack of alternatives to the American market.
Especially with the rise and seeming power of BRICS there is surely a sense that the pressure is a bit off from the USA, America will be unwilling to add on to pressure against Australia that is close to core BRICS, etc.
Do not discount the rising awareness of the real weakness the “American” empire finds itself in suddenly.
Lol at you believing courts or judges don't follow their countries dictates. Most of the time such cases would be routed to a judge that will do what is asked without making any noise.
Where I come from, there is no need to route cases. I used to believe in Western justice systems, but as I've grown older, I've come to realize that much of the corruption money from Asia, Africa, and South America is parked in these same Western countries. Many of the corrupt officials who have fled their home countries are now living in these same Western countries, and in many cases, their families have been granted citizenship. The behavior of the ruling elite in Western countries tells me all I need to know about their justice systems. It seems that a large portion of the population has willingly, maybe unknowingly, put on blinders to their own countries' systems and behaviors.
maybe wherever you are from that’s true, but not really in the developed anglosphere
8 replies →
Judiciary and law enforcement are some of the most corrupt people
[dead]
[flagged]
The DOJ is literally suing Apple for many of the same reasons right now -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
That was the ‘old’ DOJ, Tim Apple was in the Oval Office a few days ago to pay tribute in gold… it got them exemptions from tariffs and I wouldn’t be surprised if the DOJ dropped this case soon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A...
11 replies →
Compared to Europe, the US has significantly more neutral enforcement of laws for domestic prize jewels. The EU, by contrast, barely enforces its own provisions (such as anti-bribery law) against shining European stars.
As a US citizen I am curious to hear examples of the EU holding back enforcement. That's not the sort of thing that would get reported here.
1 reply →
I don't know how you got to that conclusion, every single court case against a US giant is waived in the US.
See Boeing which got pardoned recently as another example.
While not perfect, the justice system seems usually more neutral in most EU countries.
2 replies →
looks at all the cases that never happened even well before Trump got elected
You should probably be thinking that the only places they can be won is outside the US.
The administration has indicated that the EU shakedown efforts are going to be addressed. It's reasonable to assume that EU crown jewels like LVMH are going to be subject to a reciprocal shakedown.
The administration has a particular affinity for luxuries and shiny objects. I dont think that's going to happen
[flagged]
I heard they are targeting Andromeda with the next round of tariffs.
as long as they leave Squornshellous Zeta alone until I get my mattress
Speaks a lot to the legal process outside the US if that is true..
I imagine much of not going after big tech was probably politics and the unwillingness to offend a major geopolitical and trading partner.