So how is Google a monopolist if every 2 months or so my Microsoft Windows 11 asks me if I want to make Microsoft Edge my browser? Early on, I did an experiment on which browser was better. Chrome was clearly better than Edge. ( Test related to Menzoberranzan et al).
You still hope Trump might enforce some consumer friendly/anti-monopoly antitrust?! Don't be silly. He'll shake the monopolists down, keep making loyalty demands, enriching his own family fortune, and only enforce any antitrust if whoever fails to pay tribute. And this take hardly makes me Nostradamus.
In the 1970s and 80s, the courts, law professors and the antitrust lawyers all rejected the Big-is-Bad theory of antitrust law, which had prevailed since the Sherman Act was enacted, because it was incoherent, produced irreconcilable and inconsistent cases and enabled arbitrary enforcement by the Government. Nothing has changed. It’s still incoherent and still enables arbitrary enforcement.
Many of these antitrust and monopoly cases need to be eyed carefully for implicit product bundling or tying. Google search is three things: 1) indexing web content, 2) filtration of results, and 3) ad sales alongside results. Number 1 is a natural monopoly, which is why opening up search results to competitors is a subtle and wise judicial move. Number 2 begs for more competition and is no natural monopoly. This is the step where Google throttles conservative speech. Different filtration for different applications is required and unbundling "search" is how to do it.
So how is Google a monopolist if every 2 months or so my Microsoft Windows 11 asks me if I want to make Microsoft Edge my browser? Early on, I did an experiment on which browser was better. Chrome was clearly better than Edge. ( Test related to Menzoberranzan et al).
You still hope Trump might enforce some consumer friendly/anti-monopoly antitrust?! Don't be silly. He'll shake the monopolists down, keep making loyalty demands, enriching his own family fortune, and only enforce any antitrust if whoever fails to pay tribute. And this take hardly makes me Nostradamus.
In the 1970s and 80s, the courts, law professors and the antitrust lawyers all rejected the Big-is-Bad theory of antitrust law, which had prevailed since the Sherman Act was enacted, because it was incoherent, produced irreconcilable and inconsistent cases and enabled arbitrary enforcement by the Government. Nothing has changed. It’s still incoherent and still enables arbitrary enforcement.
Many of these antitrust and monopoly cases need to be eyed carefully for implicit product bundling or tying. Google search is three things: 1) indexing web content, 2) filtration of results, and 3) ad sales alongside results. Number 1 is a natural monopoly, which is why opening up search results to competitors is a subtle and wise judicial move. Number 2 begs for more competition and is no natural monopoly. This is the step where Google throttles conservative speech. Different filtration for different applications is required and unbundling "search" is how to do it.