|
|
|
|
|
by villasv
1708 days ago
|
|
Not necessarily. Anticompetitive behavior is hard to define, but I like this quote from Ben Thompson: > What makes this distinction particularly challenging is that the question as to what is anticompetitive and what is simply good business changes as a business scales. A small business can generally be as anticompetitive as it wants to be, while a much larger business is much more constrained in how anticompetitively it can act. Basically, you only cross the line between competitive and anticompetitive when you're approaching total victory, to a point of almost no return. |
|
> A small business can generally be as anticompetitive as it wants to be...
The whole point of anticompetitive behavior is to reduce competition in the market. A "small business" generally doesn't have the ability to do this at any meaningful level even if it engages in behavior that would reduce competition if it was instead a huge business.
For instance, if a small business decides to sell some products at a loss ("dumping"), it won't meaningfully drive competitors out of the market. Therefore it would be silly to characterize this behavior as anticompetitive.
Put simply, you are anticompetitive when you actually have the ability to meaningfully reduce competition in the market. If you go down the list of behaviors that are typically considered anticompetitive, almost none of them would be employed by small businesses in an effort to reduce competition anyway.