Seems like a progressive corporation tax would be an easy way to allow "the market" to naturally limit the size of corporations and find the correct separation points for separate businesses.
Nicer to stay at eg. 25% and have competition. Maybe ramp it exponentially
(yes, I know there are loopholes in this pie-in-the-sky)
Also, if you invent something so novel it makes a new market, that would imply you are immediately taxed at 100%.
Market definition should be tied to revenue source. It'd be difficult, but doesn't seem insurmountable.
The Android/iPhone problem is somewhat of a unique case, given mobile's size. IMHO "unreasonable to non-monopolize" should be an option... but come with FRAND interconnection requirements as a consequence of designation (e.g. Android/iPhone both have to offer the ability for other apps stores to be implemented, and can only charge those stores FRAND fees)
And novelty / new markets could be solved by progressively implementing the tax rate increases as the market matures (e.g. first 5 years).
In antitrust law, a "market" is defined as an area of effective competition that includes both product (or service) and geographic dimensions. The US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission use market definitions to evaluate competition under laws like the Clayton Act.
Tools like the hypothetical monopolist test are used to determine whether a market is too narrow by assessing if a monopolist could profitably raise prices.
> Also, if you invent something so novel it makes a new market, that would imply you are immediately taxed at 100%.
Fine, pick some fractional coefficient.
(That said, there are a hundred other things that'd need fixing for such a hypothetical to be viable, let alone desirable. This was just the thing that stood out the most to me, particularly on a site centered around startups.)
That's innovation, which is not the issue here. Creating new markets is usually win-win (initially), even with big tech leading the way.
The more damaging issue is in taking over existing markets in ways that do not benefit that market. e.g Big tech Moving into film and TV, it's not simply a buyout with massive capital, it's about burning money in one ancillary market to benefit their primary market, but usually at a detriment to the ancillary one. They are unfairly leveraging their primary market position, tying products together, even if they don't ever make any profit in the movies, they create more and more lock-in with their platforms, making it harder and harder to not use them. The overall affect, more profit, without a chance of competition.
You're preaching to the choir here. The post I was replying to described a policy that would have made that an issue, without some way of addressing that case.
Should Microsoft have stayed with just BASIC compiler? Should it be illegal for it to enter operating systems market? What about productivity suite?