The article talks about writing things down as if it's a negative, but surely we should applaud it? I don't want the lesson to be "don't write things down", I want it to be "don't break the law".
> I don't want the lesson to be "don't write things down", I want it to be "don't break the law".
That would be great if the law was functional. US antitrust law is a low-level IQ test, whose only function is to catch the occasional stray careless CEO admitting to the crime, ignoring corporate training 101. The article puts it well:
> It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, […] It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it.
In other words, think happy thoughts when crushing the competition. Like when Bezos was feeling charitable selling baby products at a massive loss until diapers.com was starved to death[1], and then jacking up the prices.
Negative only for Zuckerberg. The implication is that he was so arrogant and incompetent that he made a mistake (writing) that monopolists in other fields knew to avoid. Incriminating talk “should” happen only in person or on the phone if you don’t want to get busted.
That would be great if the law was functional. US antitrust law is a low-level IQ test, whose only function is to catch the occasional stray careless CEO admitting to the crime, ignoring corporate training 101. The article puts it well:
> It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, […] It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it.
In other words, think happy thoughts when crushing the competition. Like when Bezos was feeling charitable selling baby products at a massive loss until diapers.com was starved to death[1], and then jacking up the prices.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapers.com