>Makan Delrahim, who recently launched an investigation of the industry, compared the digital giants to companies that the U.S. government broke up, such as Standard Oil, and defended the power of antitrust laws to police anticompetitive conduct in the tech sector, such as agreements to bundle products.
>“The current landscape suggests there are only one or two significant players in important digital spaces, including internet search, social networks, mobile and desktop operating systems and electronic book sales,” Delrahim said in a Tuesday speech.
>The Justice Department recently took antitrust oversight of Alphabet Inc.’s Google and of Apple Inc., while the Federal Trade Commission agreed to scrutinize Amazon.com Inc. and Facebook Inc.
>Google loomed large in Delrahim’s speech — first as a potential beneficiary of the U.S. government’s antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. and then as a company that pursued potentially problematic agreements in the search market.
>Delrahim described “coordinated conduct that creates or enhances market power,” citing a proposed 2008 agreement between Google and Yahoo to have the former power search ads for the latter. He said the department told the companies it would file suit against the agreement and the companies backed away.
>The European Union charged Google with antitrust violations for agreements that forced phone makers to preinstall Google apps in return for using the Android operating system free of charge. Google is appealing. Apple and Google both face growing complaints about the fees they charge developers on their mobile app stores.
>When “a dominant firm uses exclusive dealing to prevent entry or diminish the ability of rivals to achieve necessary scale,” that can limit competition, Delrahim said. Microsoft was accused of using dominance of PC operating systems to quash competition in the web browser market by bundling its Internet Explorer software. The company was ultimately forced to offer rival browsers with the Windows operating system.
>Many U.S. antitrust experts have dismissed calls for a crackdown on tech companies, arguing that their conduct doesn’t harm consumers because the businesses offer free or cheap services and products. Delrahim dismissed that line of thinking.
>“The antitrust division does not take a myopic view of competition,” he said. “Price effects alone do not provide a complete picture of market dynamics, especially in digital markets in which the profit-maximizing price is zero.”
>Delrahim argued that “harm to innovation” is also an important dimension of competition that can have far-reaching effects.
>“Consider, for example, a product that never reaches the market or is withdrawn from the market due to an unlawful acquisition,” he added, immediately after noting low prices or free services from Google and Amazon. “The antitrust laws should protect the competition that would be lost in that scenario as well.”
>Delrahim said that lack of competition can degrade product quality, citing privacy lapses and free-speech questions as examples. Tech giants such as Google and Facebook have come under fire for mishandling these issues.
>“By protecting competition, we can have an impact on privacy and data protection,” he said.
>Acquiring start-ups is a common strategy by tech giants, but some critics say this can block the rise of potential competitors. Delrahim said he might not be able to define when such purchases are problematic.
Owen King
I had an American economics professor at university.
He went like "American economic policy is all about breaking up cartels". He was right.
Angel Howard
This is a good step. The ultimate goal is to formulate regulations that require Telecom companies to operate in a manner that aligns with the concept of free speech. If you build a public commens that gives anyone and everyone a digital soapbox, you cannot take said soapboxes away because of what the user says.
Julian Jenkins
>regulations kys kike.
Leo Harris
interesting >Trump goes on a retarded half ass tariffs war...now wants two titans to pay up
Did any of you retarded niggers even watch the House Judiciary committee meeting regarding anti-trust laws?
The entire thing is a way to stop YouTube journalists, put power back in the old media, and ensure no one spreads threats to their democracy.
Google is evil, yes, but don't trade in master for another. The anti-trust laws would provide exemption to mainstream news organizations, effectively allowing them to bully anyone.
we've already seen this with Vox. It'll be 100 times worse. The closing statements we're about how Russian bots and trolls will no longer be able to spread 'misinformation' and they will no longer threaten their democracy.
The DOJ case isn't the same as the law democrats are trying to pass which won't make it past the Senate. Dishonest to conflate the two desu
Dominic Morales
So it is yet another jewish trick...
William Torres
>Makan Delrahim Why the fuck is this poo in charge of overseeing the largest companies in the US? He's our antitrust chief?! Ajit Pai is the head of the FCC and Google is run by Sundar. Stick a fork in this country, because America is DONE.
Lucas Taylor
The entire point is there should not be titans. They abused the system and the system corrupted to allow them to do all of this.
Cooper Hernandez
Kek, you're right. I might actually be retarded.i don't know how I managed to mix up the House with the DoJ.
Yep. Right wing will get their voice back but..... questioning msm will not. 911, sandy hook etc vids that question msm will not be allowed. Also any jew criticism... shoad... Guaranteed. Jewish tricks indeed
Yeah, I'm sure they'll totally be broken up for real. I'm sure there's no chance they'll just have some people shuffled around and rename a couple things.
