←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.45112364[source]
> Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.

This is the problem. It doesn't matter if they used those specific assets to perpetrate these specific acts. The overall market power derived from those assets (and many others) taints everything they do.

There is no way to effectively curtail monopoly power by selectively limiting the actions of monopolists in certain specific domains. It's like thinking you can stop a rampaging 500-pound gorilla by tying two of its fingers together because those were the two fingers that were at the leading edge of its blow when it crushed someone's skull with a punch.

Once a company has monopoly power of any kind, it is useless to try to stop it from using that power to do certain things. It will always find a way to use its power to get around any restrictions. The problem isn't what the monopoly does, it's that the monopoly exists. The only surefire way is to destroy the monopoly itself by shattering the company into tiny pieces so that no entity holds monopoly power at all.

replies(2): >>45112871 #>>45114851 #
r0m4n0 ◴[] No.45112871[source]
Sounds nice but many companies cannot exist in tiny pieces, Google included. So if you force that it will cease to exist. Which I believe to be a net negative to the US, and world, some may disagree though

Disclosure: Google employee, words are my own

replies(3): >>45113674 #>>45113817 #>>45114195 #
BrenBarn ◴[] No.45113674[source]
> Which I believe to be a net negative to the US, and world, some may disagree though

Yes, I disagree. If we can't have Google without monopolism then we should have neither. Treating Google as essential in this situation is like a druggie saying he "needs" his next hit. People only "need" Google because Google has used its monopoly position to try to make people addicted to it. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, the company should have been broken up 10+ years ago, and it's only getting worse. It would be better to destroy it entirely (along with many other such large companies) than to keep it with its disproportionate power.

replies(1): >>45116549 #
1. shadowgovt ◴[] No.45116549[source]
Or, perhaps, it should be nationalized. If it's such a critical piece of infrastructure that dissolving it would be unthinkable, but it also can't be competed with in the marketplace... It could be removed from the marketplace.

This isn't unheard of for communications technology. Postal service in England was exclusively a Crown privilege, then the monarchy realized there were benefits to the Empire if everyone could use the system, and that was such a good idea that when the US Constitution was written it asserted the government had to provide a postal service. There is past precedent for a government-oversight private enterprise in the US.

replies(1): >>45121622 #
2. harrisi ◴[] No.45121622[source]
It's not only not unheard of, this just happened with US Steel in June. The president currently has essentially full control over the board and veto rights to just about any decision that the company makes, which effectively nationalizes it.