Hacker News Reader

Comment by Loughla | Hacker News Reader

>One would expect companies to be judged based on following the spirit of the law, rather than nitpicking and allowing wide holes like this.

The letter of the law is what people follow. The spirit, or intent, of the law is what they argue about in court cases.

If the regulation says 49% and a company follows it, who's to say they're exploiting a loophole? They're literally following the law. Until there is a court case and precedent is set.

View on HN

The Clayton act explicitly includes partial acquisition as still being covered. "No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock... [where] the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."

There may be some other regulations that are avoided by a partial acquisition, but it doesn't bring it wholly outside of the relevant antitrust laws.

> who's to say they're exploiting a loophole?

I guess "intent" is what matters really. If the intent is to avoid regulatory review and you could prove that intent, then they're trying to exploit it. That in itself should probably trigger a review regardless. If they've arrived at 49% for some other reason(s) than just to avoid regulatory review, then fair enough.

Correct. That's what courts are for, like I said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com