[yjftsjthsd-h]

> What is competition supposed to be if it’s not beating the competition.

It's supposed to be fair. Microsoft didn't get nailed because they were winning, they got nailed because they were winning by abusing one monopoly to try and create another.

[lazide]

Bwahaha. Since when is business, or hell life in general fair?

Maybe ‘not doing illegal things’ should be the bar? At least they’re written down in advance (hopefully) instead of retroactively defined by folks who didn’t win?

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Maybe ‘not doing illegal things’ should be the bar? At least they’re written down in advance (hopefully) instead of retroactively defined by folks who didn’t win?

...yes, allow me to introduce you too this little thing called the Sherman Antitrust Act, which has been the law for ~130 years.

[lazide]

Oh that I had no issues with, as you see in my comment history. That’s not what the parent poster I was responding to was implying though.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

You replied to me; what did you think I was implying?

[lazide]

That you first led with if it was fair or not, then tacked on the law as a penalty for it not being fair (seemingly in your opinion, as you provided no particular specifics).

Which is what you wrote.

As it’s hard to find a company that doesn’t at least attempt tactics like this named in the complaint (or much worse), it seemed to leave the implication clear.

They deserved to have the law applied because you felt it was unfair.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

That law exists to explicitly make certain types of unfair competition illegal. That's the point. So yeah, I pointed out that there's an underlying ethical principle, and that principle got encoded into the law, and MS (and now Google) violated both the ethical principle and the actual law.

[aergoibqer]

>Bwahaha. Since when is business, or hell life in general fair?

Fatalism sounds wise but is not. Life is fairer than it used to be and can be fairer than it is now. We cannot end injustice, but we can end this injustice.

Besides, the US alleges crimes.

[lazide]

It isn’t fatalism, it’s ownership. Fatalism would be saying ‘nothing can ever be fair’. Which isn’t true.

If one assumes life is or should be fair, then when it is not one is a victim of others and has little means to resolve it directly. After all, that should never have even been possible!

If one assumes life is not fair, then one has awareness of risks and choices they can make (and a realistic view of choices they don’t have).

If one wants to make a just and fair society, recognizing it is an abstraction on a fundamentally unfair foundation is important. Or you’ll just end up with a delusion plastered on top of another delusion.

Allegations are also easy. A verdict is a different matter. We’ll see what happens.

And frankly, if life was actually fair - we wouldn’t need a justice system at all, would we?

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, yeah, that was exactly it. It's not that Microsoft was unfair, it was that Microsoft was unfair in ways that were illegal under the current law.

[AlbertCory]

What is being " retroactively defined"? And how much about antitrust law do you know?

[lazide]

‘Fair’ and ‘reasonable’ in this case.

As to the second question, feel free to browse my comment history.

[AlbertCory]

on comment history: I looked at the first four pages.

the only really relevant ones I saw were about attorney-client privilege, where you were 100% right. I saw nothing much about antitrust.

"fair" and "reasonable" definitions probably suffer because there aren't that many antitrust cases tried, period.

[lazide]

Apologies, been too busy posting apparently. I did read the actual Sherman act (and provided links) recently, and experience wise I’ve been in management and senior leadership at several FAANGs in the past where this particular situation was a real and present ongoing concern. Including the one being targeted in this case.

So I’ve had all the training, worked with some talented attorneys, and been directly involved in related decisions - though not the ones being called into question here.

[AlbertCory]

ok. those are two words that are deliberately left up to the judge & jury to decide. Trying to define them would just end up being circular.

[lazide]

So one could only know after it had been ruled on?

Which is by definition after it had occurred. Which is my point on retroactive.

[AlbertCory]

No, your point is wrong.

Jurisprudence is about establishing consistent interpretations of those words. The point of "legal certainty" is that an ordinary citizen can predict what will and won't be judged fair and reasonable. "Courts have ruled" is what you go by. The Supreme Court in whatever country is the final judge of that.

If your point is that it's inconsistent, that's trivially true. Human beings are involved.

After this exchange, I thought of a use that's been reduced to one syllable: FRAND, for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory."

[tennisflyi]

> Since when is business, or hell life in general fair?

100% it's not. It could start with you though.

[lazide]

I’ll let the DOJ know ASAP, with any luck I’ll still be able to file! Or that is complete nonsense in this case.

[tennisflyi]

Great. Keep me updated!

[flangola7]

> Bwahaha. Since when is business, or hell life in general fair?

The entire purpose and objective of the law is to make society just and fair. It is far from perfect, but it is well superior to the selfish mayhem you speak of.

Laws are also not retroactive.

[lazide]

Ho man. Have you ever actually sat in a court room before?

Or been involved in cases?

This is so far from the actual application of the law it’s hilarious.

The purpose of the law is keeping problem cases under control, providing a degree of predictability necessary for social stability, and mediating disputes in a way they don’t escalate into socially disruptive violence.

‘Keeping the peace’.

All the rest is window dressing/PR.

The reason why Google is getting this case thrown at it is not because what it was doing was unfair - but because they were too damn good at doing it.

If they went bankrupt trying or it didn’t work, no one would care. Same if they were only middling successful (but didn’t get so obscenely rich and high profile off it). There are hundreds of examples of this right now in a number of industries, from meat packing to RAM, that will continue to be ignored.

And because they’ve been so good at it, it’s stirring up a lot of anger and resentment that will cause problems. So they need to be “brought back under control”. Just like Microsoft was back in the day.

We’ll see what happens.