The notion that a cofounder has some secret sauce that gives the government the authority and power to do something like this is a great way to drive clicks. But it ain't gonna break up facebook.
Not authority, the article just claims that Hughes is giving them information to use when building their case.
Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago to get into a commanding position, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination.
>Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.
But it gives press attention to an interesting effort, and Hugues can repeat what I think is his key point: Mark is a genuinely well-intended, value-driven and well-informed person; however, that doesn’t matter, monopolies are dangerous, even in the hands of Mr Rogers. And Hugues understand social media better than most regulators and can recommend better principles, like inter-operability, and give context, notably on abuse control.
Certainly the DoJ can make a solid case sans some outlier.
There was no breakup because the courts laughed the government out of the room. In the end, they ended up having to negotiate with M$, and there was an agreement to allow other browsers on M$ operating systems. Basically it was laughable. But the law is the law.
And that would be why we need to change the law. Going after digital companies using laws set up to regulate non-digital companies, is just the height of foolishness. You would think the M$ experience would have taught people? But I guess not.
He can provide both in spades.
- The supreme court is part of the government
- The government is empowered to change the constitution, including disbanding the supreme court.
- The vast majority of the time Congress passing an explicit law instead of an agency making some rules would satisfy the existing supreme court with the existing constitution anyways.