Google and FB have become two of the largest companies in the world. Why? Because they have an exclusive lock on digital advertising.
And remember the illegal non-poaching agreements?
Google might look a lot more like Yahoo if these two scandals never occurred. What would be a fair punishment? I am thinking a fine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
The government doesn't want to actually debilitate you in an antitrust lawsuit because it could ironically make the nearest competitor a monopoly when your business implodes. Whoopsie! Although monopolies themselves are not illegal as long as anticompetitive practices aren't deployed, the state is still trying to promote competition, and is keen to avoid causing it themselves.
Breaking rules is tight!
There is a book on this reality if you want to read more.
Because they are state sanctioned activities, by Congress in reference to an article of the Constitution.
> What constitutes anticompetitive practices and why are they illegal?
Good question and because the state says so. There are a few, but obviously the incentives for quarterly results are more consequential and lucrative.
1. The filing of a patent requires the filer to disclose the operation of the patented invention such that any art-practiced person could replicate it. Any non-disclosed secrets are protected only under trade-secret law, where the thing is secret only until the secret is out. That's how Coca-Cola has kept the Coke recipe a secret for generations.
2. The patent is enforceable only for a limited period of time (20 years), much like copyright originally was (14x2). Due to innovation pressures, and the fact that companies recognize they build on one anothers' works, that enforcement window hasn't been extended. Instead, companies rely on patent thickets to keep competitors out for the proscribed period of time.
As mentioned above, modern patents aren't actually subject to these limitations. Modern drafting lawyers do everything they can to exclude required information in the patient itself so that it can't be used for reproduction, while still claiming patent enforceability on the result. Additionally, patents are also awarded for a vast array of inventions that would've been previously considered unpatentable descriptions of ideas (software and process patents in particular). See Jefferson (e.g., knowledge and candles) for some of the original reasoning behind the system.
In other words, since there's no billion dollar industry buying laws requiring fewer and smaller patents, the scope of patentability keeps increasing to the benefit of already entrenched players.
Regarding patents, the article of the constitution is an instruction to Congress to secure rights for a "limited time". So maybe you needed to explain that since I guess it isn't common for people to know what the constitution says, in my world I just assume that.
The second part of the first question has different answers, depending on who you're asking. The dominant position currently is that only anticompetitive things that harm consumers should be illegal. (If you only consume free services like, say, Gmail, by definition you cannot be harmed under this theory.) Less radical theories also hold that the marketplace should be competitive, and there are other theories.
Making patents illegal would be pretty weird, given that a patent is a monopoly that wouldn't exist without government intervention.
The government isn't a monolith. There are promising political careers in store for those who crack these eggs. That's a powerful incentive.
With all the money going around these days, it would take a real all star to fight back monopolies, but I have hope!
The FTC and SEC only refer and can sometimes come in with fines and administrative remedies but they are easier to defeat. DOJ can get fines as part of a criminal suit.
The states are whatever.
The new EU can be interesting though. Best of luck to them.
But in the US it is clear what is going to happen and why.
Not sure if this is sarcasm. The article is about a suit, brought by state attorneys general, seeking to break up these companies. That’s plenty toothsome.
The state attorneys general extracted hundreds of billions from Big Tobacco as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.
Sorry, but the states are hardly "whatever."
The EU on the other hand levies pitiful fines repeatedly, and nothing changes. Then, at the same time they pass rules like GDPR, which disproportionately harm small competitors and thus help monopolies like Google and Facebook that an afford to comply.
I'd put my money on the several states' attorneys general.
https://www.propublica.org/article/robert-mueller-russia-inv...
Those who were responsible for it would still probably walk away billionaires and millionaires.
That doesn't mean this case is automatically invalid but I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
Perhaps unethical, but in what way is rigging the ad market illegal that oil companies, lodging, airline, and auto manufacturers don't already do?