undefined | Better HN

0 pointsoldgradstudent3y ago0 comments

> This is very much the system working as-designed

The system was designed to criminalize any attempt to monopolize, not just block the transaction.

The Sherman antitrust act was quite clear about it:

> Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Later it was made a felony.

It is not enforced this way by the courts.

0 comments

gameman1443y ago

Adobe isn't (ostensibly) trying to monopolize though, they're trying to buy another company.

Regulators step in and say "That would be a monopoly", to which everyone involved says "Darn, well we can't continue trying to merge then, since that would be a felony".

This all seems totally fine and legal and working as designed.

oldgradstudentOP3y ago

Everyone suspects they're buying Figma for $20B not because they think it will bring that amount of money, but that it will maintains Adobe's pricing power.

Is that turns out to be true, then it seems a violation of the act.

SecretDreams3y ago

Yes, Adobe is trying to buy their competition into submission to protect their SAAS model.

I don't think their moat is defensible indefinitely for the cost they're asking, but this type of thing would buy them some time.

It is telling that they can't do something better with the 20bil, though. Not much innovation left to squeeze out and there's no chance Figma generates this type of revenue for years (if ever?).

Eddy_Viscosity23y ago

The law says that "attempt to monopolize" is a crime, so even trying this was illegal.

meany3y ago

Are you suggesting that Adobe and Figma executives should be criminally charged with an attempt to monopolize the market?

Edit: I looked up the justice department’s stance. From: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

The Sherman Antitrust Act

This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which are punishable as criminal felonies.

The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.

The Act, however, is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; in that case, competition is working properly.

oldgradstudentOP3y ago

Yes. Or at least join the queue.

It it turns out, as almost everyone suspects, that Adobe is buying Figma not because Figma will be a source of revenue, but mainly to prevent competition, then it's a clear violation of the Sherman antitrust act and should be punished accordingly.

Before then in the front of the queue should be companies like Uber whose entire business plan was dumping to destroy the existing taxi industry, and then have the monopoly power to raise prices.

That's a pure monopoly play.

meany3y ago

I think the bar for criminal prosecution is much higher than than "everyone suspects." It needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt, which I think is a harder case to make. You'd need documented evidence that that was the goal. Otherwise, I think it would be pretty easy for lawyers to create some level of doubt. I doubt the justice department could win that in a court of law.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsoldgradstudent3y ago0 comments

> This is very much the system working as-designed

The system was designed to criminalize any attempt to monopolize, not just block the transaction.

The Sherman antitrust act was quite clear about it:

Later it was made a felony.

It is not enforced this way by the courts.

0 comments

gameman1443y ago

Adobe isn't (ostensibly) trying to monopolize though, they're trying to buy another company.

Regulators step in and say "That would be a monopoly", to which everyone involved says "Darn, well we can't continue trying to merge then, since that would be a felony".

This all seems totally fine and legal and working as designed.

oldgradstudentOP3y ago

Everyone suspects they're buying Figma for $20B not because they think it will bring that amount of money, but that it will maintains Adobe's pricing power.

Is that turns out to be true, then it seems a violation of the act.

SecretDreams3y ago

Yes, Adobe is trying to buy their competition into submission to protect their SAAS model.

I don't think their moat is defensible indefinitely for the cost they're asking, but this type of thing would buy them some time.

It is telling that they can't do something better with the 20bil, though. Not much innovation left to squeeze out and there's no chance Figma generates this type of revenue for years (if ever?).

Eddy_Viscosity23y ago

The law says that "attempt to monopolize" is a crime, so even trying this was illegal.

meany3y ago

Are you suggesting that Adobe and Figma executives should be criminally charged with an attempt to monopolize the market?

Edit: I looked up the justice department’s stance. From: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

The Sherman Antitrust Act

The Act, however, is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; in that case, competition is working properly.

oldgradstudentOP3y ago

Yes. Or at least join the queue.

Before then in the front of the queue should be companies like Uber whose entire business plan was dumping to destroy the existing taxi industry, and then have the monopoly power to raise prices.

That's a pure monopoly play.

meany3y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse