Comments on: The road to antitrust is paved with good intentions

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:27:55 +0000

Just for the record, I am not outraged about Google, nor do I think it meets the standard definition of monopoly. Thanks for the comment though.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:26:22 +0000

Those are some great points, Ken. Thanks for the comment.

By: eideard

eideard — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:45:06 +0000

Nowadays, the road to anti-trust investigations is mostly paved with Attorney-Generals who want to be governor or senator.

By: eideard

eideard — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:44:50 +0000

Nowadays, the road to anti-trust investigations is mostly paved with Attorney=Generals who want to be governor or senator.

By: dale

dale — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:30:58 +0000

I agree with this. McDonalds is not acting in an anti competitive nature when it sells ice creams (hamburgers being the main business) in the store it has built, no one would force them to sell competitors food and if we don’t agree / don’t like them we can always go to another fast food joint.

By: txpatriot

txpatriot — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:49:03 +0000

Try again RK; Section 2 does not use the term “natural or innocent”; it says that “monopolizing” (i.e., a verb) a trade is illegal but the Sherman Act does not per se ban monopolies (i.e., the noun).

And since YOU made the claim, it is up to you to prove it — I don’t have to do YOUR research for YOU.

And pray tell (since neither you nor the FTC have bothered to say): what EXACTLY is Google accused of “monopolizing”?

By: RK

RK — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:23:54 +0000

Please see Section 2 of the Sherman Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000002—-000-.html. This would be my last comment on this topic. Obviously there is a rich and long legal history behind the Sherman Act and its application to various industries. I invite you to do your own research and perhaps speak with your friends and colleagues in the legal profession.

By: txpatriot

txpatriot — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:56:24 +0000

@RK: Let me refresh your memory: “The laws forbids monopolies except in the case of natural or innocent monopolies.” I invite you to quote chapter and verse where the law forbids all monopolies other than “natural or innocent”.

By: RK

RK — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:08:12 +0000

I don’t believe I wrote the law forbids monopolies. What I said was monopolies invite government scrutiny — always has, always will be. Moreover, most people do not realize that practices used by non-monopolies may well be ruled illegal when practiced by monopolies.

By: R

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:15:14 +0000

sooo…. no real Net Neutrality from our great govt, but let’s make up some reasons (like “Search Neutrality”) to investigate Google, since they’re not ponying up enough lobby cash, like all the ISPs do. Oh, and they’re also trying to help build Muni Broadband, which goes against what the ISPs want.
Ain’t it great when your elected govt represents corporate money rather than their citizens !!
If anything, this is more like proof of “no evil” on Google’s part, in my opinion.