[dahfizz]

Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively.

> The lawsuit said Google had “corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers and brokers to facilitate digital advertising.”

[lolinder]

> Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively.

Indeed, the original purpose of anti-trust laws was to prevent trusts and cartels--multiple companies collectively fixing prices and ensuring that no new entrants can compete.

[tzs]

> Anti-trust lawsuits don't require an absolute monopoly. It requires proving that a company behaved anti-competitively

Also, having a monopoly (even an absolution monopoly) does not automatically mean you are violating antitrust law. You had to do something anti-competitive to get that monopoly or be doing something anti-competitive to maintain it.

The easiest way to think about it is that US antitrust law is about preventing monopolization, not about preventing monopolies.

[postalrat]

Then their first target should be Apple.

[judge2020]

Epic Games is still fighting their antitrust case against Apple so the federal government isn’t going to swoop in and take over the case. If Epic truly fails and DOJ doesn’t see it as a favorable outcome, they might further explore antitrust litigation.

[brookst]

I've never understood this kind of "regulators should ignore evidence of wrongdoing as long as there is also evidence of someone else engaging in wrongdoing" thinking. Even granting that Apple is super-mega-unbearably evil, do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted?

[midoridensha]

>do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted?

Actually, yes. Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. It makes the problem even worse than before.

As a consumer who doesn't want to use Apple devices, and uses Google because that's basically the only other option for many things, anything that greatly harms Google harms me. Take down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. After Apple is broken apart, then Google becomes the #1 problem, so go after them at that time. (Yes, I know this particular case probably won't have that much effect on Google.)

[dmitriid]

> Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense.

And yet immediately:

> ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google.

But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue.

Google's Android is #1

Google's Chrome is #1

Google's search is #1

Google's ad engine is #1

Google's Gmail is #1

[midoridensha]

According to a quick google search, iOS has almost 60% marketshare in the US. Many other top-GDP nations are similar.

A bunch of people in India using Android isn't much help when you're in a country where most people use Apple.

By your logic, most monopolies shouldn't be investigated or regulated at all, because most people on the entire planet don't use their products. One airline is fine, because most humans don't ever fly. One car company is fine, because most humans don't have cars. Etc.

[brookst]

Coke has 60% market share for colas in the US. Do your same complaints apply?

It all depends on how you define the market. If you’re motivated to desire a certain outcome, it’s easy to define the market in a way to get what you want.