Antitrust laws are not intended to protect consumers, they are intended to protect competition. It can certainly be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers, but this is an indirect benefit, and not the purpose of the laws.
Really!? It 'can be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers'? Pray tell, what other benefit is the FTC protecting? And, that is an 'indirect' benefit? What is the 'direct' benefit from protecting competition? You may want to go to ftc.gov and check. Might learn a thing or two.
(Actually, allow me to tell you. Here's the first para from the page on Bureau of Competition: "The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition enforces the nation's antitrust laws, which form the foundation of our free market economy. The antitrust laws promote the interests of consumers; they support unfettered markets and result in lower prices and more choices." Source: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/about.shtm)
Really!? It 'can be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers'? Pray tell, what other benefit is the FTC protecting? And, that is an 'indirect' benefit? What is the 'direct' benefit from protecting competition? You may want to go to ftc.gov and check. Might learn a thing or two.
(Actually, allow me to tell you. Here's the first para from the page on Bureau of Competition: "The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition enforces the nation's antitrust laws, which form the foundation of our free market economy. The antitrust laws promote the interests of consumers; they support unfettered markets and result in lower prices and more choices." Source: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/about.shtm)
The antitrust laws were conceived with the purpose of protecting competition, plain and simple. You will find with little research that these laws regulate entirely how companies behave towards each other and provide no direct consumer protection. Some have argued that the laws actually harm consumers.
The FTC is hardly the only agency which is involved with antitrust law, and in fact hasn't been a very effective enforcer of these laws historically. (Example: it was the FTC's inability to respond to complaints about Microsoft's behavior during the early 1990s which led to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division taking on the case.) Most antitrust law enforcement activity occurs within the DoJ.
I know it comes as a surprise to many that antitrust laws in the U.S. are not designed with the primary purpose of protecting consumers, but it's true. I had to learn about all this arcane business years ago when I was following U.S. v. Microsoft on a daily basis.
The antitrust laws were conceived with the purpose of protecting competition, plain and simple. You will find with little research that these laws regulate entirely how companies behave towards each other and provide no direct consumer protection. Some have argued that the laws actually harm consumers.
The FTC is hardly the only agency which is involved with antitrust law, and in fact hasn't been a very effective enforcer of these laws historically. (Example: it was the FTC's inability to respond to complaints about Microsoft's behavior during the early 1990s which led to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division taking on the case.) Most antitrust law enforcement activity occurs within the DoJ.
I know it comes as a surprise to many that antitrust laws in the U.S. are not designed with the primary purpose of protecting consumers, but it's true. I had to learn about all this arcane business years ago when I was following U.S. v. Microsoft on a daily basis.
I notice that you avoided the substantive question I asked you in the previous post, and proceeded to state the same thing you did before. So, let me ask again: What is the primary goal of promoting competition? (Hint: 'Competition,' in the idealized sense, implies P = MC).
Everyone knows that both the FTC and the DoJ are involved in enforcing antitrust. Their goals are perfectly aligned (they have to be: they both work for the same government, in implementing the same antitrust laws). I had earlier posted what the FTC's competition goals are all about. So now let me tell you what DoJ says: "The historic goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through lower prices, better quality and greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anticompetitive restraints."
Incidentally, not that it is in any way germane to the point, but do you have a cite for the claim that "Most antitrust law enforcement activity occurs within the DoJ." (Just curious.) And, I hope that you will not simply answer this side question in response, but the learning from your insights on this 'arcane business' on what the goal of promoting competition is.
I am not "avoiding" anything, I am simply trying to explain something. Not sure why you are being so adamant. If you read the Clayton and Sherman acts, you will find that they are predicated entirely on promoting competition. Entirely. You will also find bringing a successful antitrust case requires that findings be made that competition has been harmed, because this is what the law requires. Not consumers, competition. This should come as less of a surprise when you consider that these acts were conceived in a time when the concept of "consumers" didn't even exist.
The EU seems to take a somewhat different approach.
And no, not everyone knows what role the DoJ has in enforcing antitrust laws. In fact, probably few do.
Try to find a major antitrust case effectively prosecuted by the FTC. I can't think of any. The big landmark antitrust suits (U.S. v. Microsoft, U.S. v. AT&T) were DoJ cases.
Sometimes I feel bad for people like Gassée who have good products but still can?t get a foothold. I wonder what Macs would be like today if BeOS was used and if Jobs never came back to Apple.
Extinct.
Gassee helped drive Apple to the brink after Jobs was ousted. He believed in 55% profit margins and uber performance (as opposed to usability) leading to engineer driven product design at high (even for Apple) pricing.
Be never amounted to anything and did no favors for PalmSource.
I guess some folks would have been happy though. They'd have gotten their uber xmac before Apple closed it's doors. Although, it would have been at current Mac Pro pricing (or higher) and essentially been the same machine so maybe not.
The EU's sole objective was/is to extract money from Microsoft. IE was just a path used by the regulators to enter the gold mine (MSFT's cash assets.).
Now, this ^ is BS.
PS: just wondering how long it will take till they will be asking OSX to do the same stuff: Safari + FF + "insert names here". Maybe same with iTunes, as they did with WMP a while ago.
Gassee helped drive Apple to the brink after Jobs was ousted. He believed in 55% profit margins and uber performance (as opposed to usability) leading to engineer driven product design at high (even for Apple) pricing.
Be never amounted to anything and did no favors for PalmSource.
I guess some folks would have been happy though. They'd have gotten their uber xmac before Apple closed it's doors. Although, it would have been at current Mac Pro pricing (or higher) and essentially been the same machine so maybe not.
I am not "avoiding" anything, I am simply trying to explain something. Not sure why you are being so adamant. If you read the Clayton and Sherman acts, you will find that they are predicated entirely on promoting competition. Entirely. You will also find bringing a successful antitrust case requires that findings be made that competition has been harmed, because this is what the law requires. Not consumers, competition. This should come as less of a surprise when you consider that these acts were conceived in a time when the concept of "consumers" didn't even exist.
The EU seems to take a somewhat different approach.
And no, not everyone knows what role the DoJ has in enforcing antitrust laws. In fact, probably few do.
Try to find a major antitrust case effectively prosecuted by the FTC. I can't think of any. The big landmark antitrust suits (U.S. v. Microsoft, U.S. v. AT&T) were DoJ cases.
I am not being adamant about anything. I am puzzled. You're the one that started this, by vehemently asserting that it is all about 'protecting competition' in an apparently contradictory response to an original point I made about the importance of protecting consumers from (price) gouging.
For you to claim that the law -- I am fairly knowledgeable on both Acts, not sure if you are -- takes 'protecting competition' as the end in itself is silly. It's like saying that the FDIC exists to collect deposit insurance (i.e., not to protect depositors), or the FEC election procedures (rather than voters), or the FDA drug approval processes (and not patients).... I could go on.
You seem to be quite caught up in a narrow box of 'law as written' rather than step back and think about -- more importantly, see, even when pointed out -- what the underlying purpose of these things are! It's no different that someone asserting that 'a computer is, no more no less, a device that inputs signals from a mouse/keyboard and processes them through a CPU so as to provide an output in the form of a display....' Surely you'd agree that, while it is that, it is also much more than that?
I am still awaiting an answer from you on why you think -- more important, why the DoJ and the FTC and Sherman and Clayton Acts think -- it is important to 'protect competition'. Take your time.
I believe see your problem now. United States antitrust law is mainly a product of the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. You should not confuse the way you see the world in 2009 with the way it was understood in the 19th century.
The Clayton and Sherman acts don't think anything. Congress at the time thought that it was necessary to protect competition, which at the time was often called fair trading, so they passed laws which they expected to do so. This was a major issue in the era of the trusts, vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies (think Standard Oil), and cartels. Congress was concerned with commercial and trade issues, not "consumers" -- a concept which did not register more than 100 years ago when this all began. They were protecting business interests. I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
No adamant assertions, just an explanation about how the laws in the U.S. came about, what they mean, and how they function. I'm sorry you can't accept it, because what I am telling you is accurate and factual. These aren't my ideas. You could easily pick up a good American history book and find the same information.
Congress was concerned with commercial and trade issues, not "consumers" -- a concept which did not register more than 100 years ago when this all began. They were protecting business interests. I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
I think I might take your point a bit further: Anti-trust laws were created by big business, for big business. If you were an evil businessman with access to the might and power of government, think about how you could use the system to benefit yourself. From everything I have learned about government, almost every law and regulation is designed to please special interest groups behind the scenes, and then the politicians invent a public relations story.
Regulations are mostly created by established businessmen who want to destroy their competition using the government. These businessmen approach their political friends in the government, and ask for new regulations which make it harder for their competitors to remain in business. The politician's job is to invent a nice sounding excuse for why the new regulation is necessary - typically, it's in the name of safety or 'protecting jobs' or some other nonsense. It's a win-win arrangement for the politician and the corrupt businessman, but everyone else loses.
A restaurant licensing board is made up of established restaurant owners who get together and pass new regulations for the industry. The public excuse is that they have the most experience and knowledge for regulating the industry. The real reason is that they can eliminate new competitors by raising the bar of entry into the market. For example, they may pass a regulation requiring all restaurants to buy a $50,000 stove in the name of health and safety. The established restaurants already have these expensive stoves, but very few new restaurants can afford them. Result: less new competition.
Ah but the code has random, just not 'pseudo random'. Infact this algorithm feeds off the chaos of life itself
i dreamed of this day when the fullness of the whole unfiied universe is seen as randomonic chaos of numbers and the life it allowed to spring forth / walking back to the -30sec big bang event wave true random numbers were allowed at last to be free.
all these nay sayers and there fake random sums will BOW to us the day when the andromeda galaxy collides with the milky way . chaos will spring forth quarks. anti quarks and silly strings will be revealed in the bright blinding light of dark matter/energy.
PS: A PSA for anyone traveling this holiday season: If you use a notebook running Windows on battery power you are better off using IE if you are trying to get the most juice from your system. All the other browsers are worse, with Safari on Windows being very bad.
It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.
It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.
I am so far above the maddening crowd >> your crowd > hippie crowd luddite crowds
I have 3 macs at home 2 macs at work
I commute W/a 15MBP 3.02GHz 500g 7200rpm machine
i would love a smart nano phone that could do a few simple dog tricks like stream hulu
or live news cnn style
or market quotes real time
and when i have my hippie flash back's i can play ten years after from woodstock >> i go home >>
YET >> yes i see your point
but the point YOU miss is to be un connected for 49 minutes a day is a blessing .
when the teleco industry matures and gives us a simple phone that never drops a call . then we can talk , then we can add all the 3000000 million apps
and you say need
yes right now i see many subway riders feverish on there crack berries/ iphones /beads of sweat almost form of there frozen biz faces while they finish some works .
there is no true path today just a hodge podge of competing shitty phones that drop calls and do some cool map tricks . the greed of all the telecos' has given us over priced service we don't even want
the true path would have a 3 or 4 standard style phone sets
a basic powerful phone/mail only phone that never loses a call
the next level would add maybe an ipod deal type things . <<no internet >>
the third would have 3 sub sets of powerful yet simple low power iphone like models
that would do fast true internet steaming video no dropped connections and all the enterprise stuff
or instead maybe even a 3d gaming version
and of course dick tracey want's a small nano phone that does most of what the iphone does today
EXCEPT NO DROPPED CALLS
even more simple would be a wristwatch video phone that draws power from the cloud's
And .....
peace hippie dude
9
right now we have hundreds of shitty phones that are so complicated we can't use the stupid apps anyway . we have greedy treleco that only want to kill off each other and still only want every single blood dollar that can't cheat out of us . F THEM ALL
I think I might take your point a bit further: Anti-trust laws were created by big business, for big business. If you were an evil businessman with access to the might and power of government, think about how you could use the system to benefit yourself. From everything I have learned about government, almost every law and regulation is designed to please special interest groups behind the scenes, and then the politicians invent a public relations story.
Regulations are mostly created by established businessmen who want to destroy their competition using the government. These businessmen approach their political friends in the government, and ask for new regulations which make it harder for their competitors to remain in business. The politician's job is to invent a nice sounding excuse for why the new regulation is necessary - typically, it's in the name of safety or 'protecting jobs' or some other nonsense. It's a win-win arrangement for the politician and the corrupt businessman, but everyone else loses.
A restaurant licensing board is made up of established restaurant owners who get together and pass new regulations for the industry. The public excuse is that they have the most experience and knowledge for regulating the industry. The real reason is that they can eliminate new competitors by raising the bar of entry into the market. For example, they may pass a regulation requiring all restaurants to buy a $50,000 stove in the name of health and safety. The established restaurants already have these expensive stoves, but very few new restaurants can afford them. Result: less new competition.
bullshit
rockerfella > dupont and there ilk forced Teddy Roosevelt to go after them >>>to crush them
standard oil of NJ owned 20 of 24 oil companies at the height of the monopolies reign back then /
mis use or mis undertstanding of what anti trust IS by the EU does not make it so .
ALL you DOLTS should read four or five history books that chronicle the 1780's to the 1930's peridots ; DON'T read a book about the books >>
read the real books about the rail roads or sugar> flour monopolies .
anti-trust laws may be mis used but they are and a were and will be invented by and for the common man ..
READ before all you guys make bigger fools of your selves .
Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready?
coolforsale com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.
I believe see your problem now. United States antitrust law is mainly a product of the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. You should not confuse the way you see the world in 2009 with the way it was understood in the 19th century.
The Clayton and Sherman acts don't think anything. Congress at the time thought that it was necessary to protect competition, which at the time was often called fair trading, so they passed laws which they expected to do so. This was a major issue in the era of the trusts, vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies (think Standard Oil), and cartels. Congress was concerned with commercial and trade issues, not "consumers" -- a concept which did not register more than 100 years ago when this all began. They were protecting business interests. I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
No adamant assertions, just an explanation about how the laws in the U.S. came about, what they mean, and how they function. I'm sorry you can't accept it, because what I am telling you is accurate and factual. These aren't my ideas. You could easily pick up a good American history book and find the same information.
Arguing that the concept of protecting "public interest" did not exist in the 1890s and that it significantly differs from protecting the consumer is disingeneous. We use different terms but the rationale remains the same.
Whether Sherman promoted this legislation to advance specific business goals is arguable but it is highly unlikely that it was not sold to the public in the name of protecting their interests. That's no different from today and more recent consumer protection laws.
What you are stating is not accurate nor factual but personal interpretation of past events. If it is so easy to find citations from history books that unambigously state that the sherman act was not created to protect public interest from monopolies feel free to do so.
I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
I assume nothing. I gave you two specific cites from both the FTC and the DoJ about how they view it. Since you brought up the issue of what the Acts were all about, here are DoJ's specific views on the Acts (excerpted from their website; bold typeface mine):
What Are the Federal Antitrust Laws, and What Do They Prohibit?
There are three major federal antitrust laws: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The Sherman Antitrust Act has stood since 1890 as the principal law expressing our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results for consumers. ......The 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. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only 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 is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors--that is competition working properly. ..........
The Clayton Act is a civil statute (carrying no criminal penalties) that was passed in 1914 and significantly amended in 1950. The Clayton Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under the Act, the government challenges those mergers that a careful economic analysis shows are likely to increase prices to consumers. ...........
You can ignore it, of course (as you apparently have with every substantive point I've made in our discussion).
I think I might take your point a bit further: Anti-trust laws were created by big business, for big business. If you were an evil businessman with access to the might and power of government, think about how you could use the system to benefit yourself. From everything I have learned about government, almost every law and regulation is designed to please special interest groups behind the scenes, and then the politicians invent a public relations story.
Essentially, yes. The prevailing 19th century view at least in the U.S. was that the primary mission of government was to promote economic development. (Or as Calvin Coolidge put it, "The business of America is business.") Trusts, cartels, and other conspiracies to restrain trade were seen as the enemies of capitalism. Arguments for intervening in markets to prevent monopolistic behaviors could be found in Adam Smith, so it's not like they were diving off the deep end to become the champions of the little people by passing antitrust laws. That wasn't the purpose. The purpose was aiding business.
The fundamental role of antitrust law is to prevent consumers from getting gouged by monopolies and collusive firms, not to legislate against ignorance and stupidity.
When it morphs into the latter -- which it seems to have, in the EU -- we have let the government intrude way too much into our lives and into the manner in which our businesses are run.
When you have the market share Microsoft has, one of the most common and easiest ways to gouge consumers is to prey on their ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as stupidity, and not knowing that there are alternatives to IE definitely does not make one stupid.
Rightfully or wrongfully, Microsoft is in a difficult situation. Everything they include with Windows has an impact on software markets, and their programs don't have have to be as good as their competition to gain market share. You better believe that there would be a lawsuit if Microsoft suddenly bundled Microsoft Security Essentials with Windows. In one fell swoop they would completely undermine paid anti-virus programs like Norton.
With respect to this regulation, I don't know why anyone would be against it, unless you were a Microsoft supporter and felt that bundling IE was an unfair advantage that you wanted to keep. Choice is good.
Comments
Antitrust laws are not intended to protect consumers, they are intended to protect competition. It can certainly be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers, but this is an indirect benefit, and not the purpose of the laws.
Really!? It 'can be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers'? Pray tell, what other benefit is the FTC protecting? And, that is an 'indirect' benefit? What is the 'direct' benefit from protecting competition? You may want to go to ftc.gov and check. Might learn a thing or two.
(Actually, allow me to tell you. Here's the first para from the page on Bureau of Competition: "The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition enforces the nation's antitrust laws, which form the foundation of our free market economy. The antitrust laws promote the interests of consumers; they support unfettered markets and result in lower prices and more choices." Source: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/about.shtm)
Really!? It 'can be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers'? Pray tell, what other benefit is the FTC protecting? And, that is an 'indirect' benefit? What is the 'direct' benefit from protecting competition? You may want to go to ftc.gov and check. Might learn a thing or two.
(Actually, allow me to tell you. Here's the first para from the page on Bureau of Competition: "The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition enforces the nation's antitrust laws, which form the foundation of our free market economy. The antitrust laws promote the interests of consumers; they support unfettered markets and result in lower prices and more choices." Source: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/about.shtm)
The antitrust laws were conceived with the purpose of protecting competition, plain and simple. You will find with little research that these laws regulate entirely how companies behave towards each other and provide no direct consumer protection. Some have argued that the laws actually harm consumers.
The FTC is hardly the only agency which is involved with antitrust law, and in fact hasn't been a very effective enforcer of these laws historically. (Example: it was the FTC's inability to respond to complaints about Microsoft's behavior during the early 1990s which led to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division taking on the case.) Most antitrust law enforcement activity occurs within the DoJ.
I know it comes as a surprise to many that antitrust laws in the U.S. are not designed with the primary purpose of protecting consumers, but it's true. I had to learn about all this arcane business years ago when I was following U.S. v. Microsoft on a daily basis.
The antitrust laws were conceived with the purpose of protecting competition, plain and simple. You will find with little research that these laws regulate entirely how companies behave towards each other and provide no direct consumer protection. Some have argued that the laws actually harm consumers.
The FTC is hardly the only agency which is involved with antitrust law, and in fact hasn't been a very effective enforcer of these laws historically. (Example: it was the FTC's inability to respond to complaints about Microsoft's behavior during the early 1990s which led to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division taking on the case.) Most antitrust law enforcement activity occurs within the DoJ.
I know it comes as a surprise to many that antitrust laws in the U.S. are not designed with the primary purpose of protecting consumers, but it's true. I had to learn about all this arcane business years ago when I was following U.S. v. Microsoft on a daily basis.
I notice that you avoided the substantive question I asked you in the previous post, and proceeded to state the same thing you did before. So, let me ask again: What is the primary goal of promoting competition? (Hint: 'Competition,' in the idealized sense, implies P = MC).
Everyone knows that both the FTC and the DoJ are involved in enforcing antitrust. Their goals are perfectly aligned (they have to be: they both work for the same government, in implementing the same antitrust laws). I had earlier posted what the FTC's competition goals are all about. So now let me tell you what DoJ says: "The historic goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through lower prices, better quality and greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anticompetitive restraints."
Incidentally, not that it is in any way germane to the point, but do you have a cite for the claim that "Most antitrust law enforcement activity occurs within the DoJ." (Just curious.) And, I hope that you will not simply answer this side question in response, but the learning from your insights on this 'arcane business' on what the goal of promoting competition is.
The EU seems to take a somewhat different approach.
And no, not everyone knows what role the DoJ has in enforcing antitrust laws. In fact, probably few do.
Try to find a major antitrust case effectively prosecuted by the FTC. I can't think of any. The big landmark antitrust suits (U.S. v. Microsoft, U.S. v. AT&T) were DoJ cases.
Sometimes I feel bad for people like Gassée who have good products but still can?t get a foothold. I wonder what Macs would be like today if BeOS was used and if Jobs never came back to Apple.
Extinct.
Gassee helped drive Apple to the brink after Jobs was ousted. He believed in 55% profit margins and uber performance (as opposed to usability) leading to engineer driven product design at high (even for Apple) pricing.
Be never amounted to anything and did no favors for PalmSource.
I guess some folks would have been happy though. They'd have gotten their uber xmac before Apple closed it's doors. Although, it would have been at current Mac Pro pricing (or higher) and essentially been the same machine so maybe not.
The EU's sole objective was/is to extract money from Microsoft. IE was just a path used by the regulators to enter the gold mine (MSFT's cash assets.).
Now, this ^ is BS.
PS: just wondering how long it will take till they will be asking OSX to do the same stuff: Safari + FF + "insert names here". Maybe same with iTunes, as they did with WMP a while ago.
Extinct.
Gassee helped drive Apple to the brink after Jobs was ousted. He believed in 55% profit margins and uber performance (as opposed to usability) leading to engineer driven product design at high (even for Apple) pricing.
Be never amounted to anything and did no favors for PalmSource.
I guess some folks would have been happy though. They'd have gotten their uber xmac before Apple closed it's doors. Although, it would have been at current Mac Pro pricing (or higher) and essentially been the same machine so maybe not.
Those are points i never considered.
I am not "avoiding" anything, I am simply trying to explain something. Not sure why you are being so adamant. If you read the Clayton and Sherman acts, you will find that they are predicated entirely on promoting competition. Entirely. You will also find bringing a successful antitrust case requires that findings be made that competition has been harmed, because this is what the law requires. Not consumers, competition. This should come as less of a surprise when you consider that these acts were conceived in a time when the concept of "consumers" didn't even exist.
The EU seems to take a somewhat different approach.
And no, not everyone knows what role the DoJ has in enforcing antitrust laws. In fact, probably few do.
Try to find a major antitrust case effectively prosecuted by the FTC. I can't think of any. The big landmark antitrust suits (U.S. v. Microsoft, U.S. v. AT&T) were DoJ cases.
I am not being adamant about anything. I am puzzled. You're the one that started this, by vehemently asserting that it is all about 'protecting competition' in an apparently contradictory response to an original point I made about the importance of protecting consumers from (price) gouging.
For you to claim that the law -- I am fairly knowledgeable on both Acts, not sure if you are -- takes 'protecting competition' as the end in itself is silly. It's like saying that the FDIC exists to collect deposit insurance (i.e., not to protect depositors), or the FEC election procedures (rather than voters), or the FDA drug approval processes (and not patients).... I could go on.
You seem to be quite caught up in a narrow box of 'law as written' rather than step back and think about -- more importantly, see, even when pointed out -- what the underlying purpose of these things are! It's no different that someone asserting that 'a computer is, no more no less, a device that inputs signals from a mouse/keyboard and processes them through a CPU so as to provide an output in the form of a display....' Surely you'd agree that, while it is that, it is also much more than that?
I am still awaiting an answer from you on why you think -- more important, why the DoJ and the FTC and Sherman and Clayton Acts think -- it is important to 'protect competition'. Take your time.
The Clayton and Sherman acts don't think anything. Congress at the time thought that it was necessary to protect competition, which at the time was often called fair trading, so they passed laws which they expected to do so. This was a major issue in the era of the trusts, vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies (think Standard Oil), and cartels. Congress was concerned with commercial and trade issues, not "consumers" -- a concept which did not register more than 100 years ago when this all began. They were protecting business interests. I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
No adamant assertions, just an explanation about how the laws in the U.S. came about, what they mean, and how they function. I'm sorry you can't accept it, because what I am telling you is accurate and factual. These aren't my ideas. You could easily pick up a good American history book and find the same information.
Congress was concerned with commercial and trade issues, not "consumers" -- a concept which did not register more than 100 years ago when this all began. They were protecting business interests. I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
I think I might take your point a bit further: Anti-trust laws were created by big business, for big business. If you were an evil businessman with access to the might and power of government, think about how you could use the system to benefit yourself. From everything I have learned about government, almost every law and regulation is designed to please special interest groups behind the scenes, and then the politicians invent a public relations story.
Regulations are mostly created by established businessmen who want to destroy their competition using the government. These businessmen approach their political friends in the government, and ask for new regulations which make it harder for their competitors to remain in business. The politician's job is to invent a nice sounding excuse for why the new regulation is necessary - typically, it's in the name of safety or 'protecting jobs' or some other nonsense. It's a win-win arrangement for the politician and the corrupt businessman, but everyone else loses.
A restaurant licensing board is made up of established restaurant owners who get together and pass new regulations for the industry. The public excuse is that they have the most experience and knowledge for regulating the industry. The real reason is that they can eliminate new competitors by raising the bar of entry into the market. For example, they may pass a regulation requiring all restaurants to buy a $50,000 stove in the name of health and safety. The established restaurants already have these expensive stoves, but very few new restaurants can afford them. Result: less new competition.
Ah but the code has random, just not 'pseudo random'. Infact this algorithm feeds off the chaos of life itself
i dreamed of this day when the fullness of the whole unfiied universe is seen as randomonic chaos of numbers and the life it allowed to spring forth / walking back to the -30sec big bang event wave true random numbers were allowed at last to be free.
all these nay sayers and there fake random sums will BOW to us the day when the andromeda galaxy collides with the milky way . chaos will spring forth quarks. anti quarks and silly strings will be revealed in the bright blinding light of dark matter/energy.
yes sir
9
peace dude
PS: A PSA for anyone traveling this holiday season: If you use a notebook running Windows on battery power you are better off using IE if you are trying to get the most juice from your system. All the other browsers are worse, with Safari on Windows being very bad.
clicktoflash
It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.
Iam so far above the maddening crowd
Ihave 3 macs at home
I commute w. a
It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.
I am so far above the maddening crowd >> your crowd > hippie crowd luddite crowds
I have 3 macs at home 2 macs at work
I commute W/a 15MBP 3.02GHz 500g 7200rpm machine
i would love a smart nano phone that could do a few simple dog tricks like stream hulu
or live news cnn style
or market quotes real time
and when i have my hippie flash back's i can play ten years after from woodstock >> i go home >>
YET >> yes i see your point
but the point YOU miss is to be un connected for 49 minutes a day is a blessing .
when the teleco industry matures and gives us a simple phone that never drops a call . then we can talk , then we can add all the 3000000 million apps
and you say need
yes right now i see many subway riders feverish on there crack berries/ iphones /beads of sweat almost form of there frozen biz faces while they finish some works .
there is no true path today just a hodge podge of competing shitty phones that drop calls and do some cool map tricks . the greed of all the telecos' has given us over priced service we don't even want
the true path would have a 3 or 4 standard style phone sets
a basic powerful phone/mail only phone that never loses a call
the next level would add maybe an ipod deal type things . <<no internet >>
the third would have 3 sub sets of powerful yet simple low power iphone like models
that would do fast true internet steaming video no dropped connections and all the enterprise stuff
or instead maybe even a 3d gaming version
and of course dick tracey want's a small nano phone that does most of what the iphone does today
EXCEPT NO DROPPED CALLS
even more simple would be a wristwatch video phone that draws power from the cloud's
And .....
peace hippie dude
9
right now we have hundreds of shitty phones that are so complicated we can't use the stupid apps anyway . we have greedy treleco that only want to kill off each other and still only want every single blood dollar that can't cheat out of us . F THEM ALL
I think I might take your point a bit further: Anti-trust laws were created by big business, for big business. If you were an evil businessman with access to the might and power of government, think about how you could use the system to benefit yourself. From everything I have learned about government, almost every law and regulation is designed to please special interest groups behind the scenes, and then the politicians invent a public relations story.
Regulations are mostly created by established businessmen who want to destroy their competition using the government. These businessmen approach their political friends in the government, and ask for new regulations which make it harder for their competitors to remain in business. The politician's job is to invent a nice sounding excuse for why the new regulation is necessary - typically, it's in the name of safety or 'protecting jobs' or some other nonsense. It's a win-win arrangement for the politician and the corrupt businessman, but everyone else loses.
A restaurant licensing board is made up of established restaurant owners who get together and pass new regulations for the industry. The public excuse is that they have the most experience and knowledge for regulating the industry. The real reason is that they can eliminate new competitors by raising the bar of entry into the market. For example, they may pass a regulation requiring all restaurants to buy a $50,000 stove in the name of health and safety. The established restaurants already have these expensive stoves, but very few new restaurants can afford them. Result: less new competition.
bullshit
rockerfella > dupont and there ilk forced Teddy Roosevelt to go after them >>>to crush them
standard oil of NJ owned 20 of 24 oil companies at the height of the monopolies reign back then /
mis use or mis undertstanding of what anti trust IS by the EU does not make it so .
ALL you DOLTS should read four or five history books that chronicle the 1780's to the 1930's peridots ; DON'T read a book about the books >>
read the real books about the rail roads or sugar> flour monopolies .
anti-trust laws may be mis used but they are and a were and will be invented by and for the common man ..
READ before all you guys make bigger fools of your selves .
http://www.coolforsale.com /productlist.asp?id=s76(Tracksuit)
Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready?
coolforsale com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.
Nike shox $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,ect...
For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com
Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.
I believe see your problem now. United States antitrust law is mainly a product of the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. You should not confuse the way you see the world in 2009 with the way it was understood in the 19th century.
The Clayton and Sherman acts don't think anything. Congress at the time thought that it was necessary to protect competition, which at the time was often called fair trading, so they passed laws which they expected to do so. This was a major issue in the era of the trusts, vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies (think Standard Oil), and cartels. Congress was concerned with commercial and trade issues, not "consumers" -- a concept which did not register more than 100 years ago when this all began. They were protecting business interests. I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
No adamant assertions, just an explanation about how the laws in the U.S. came about, what they mean, and how they function. I'm sorry you can't accept it, because what I am telling you is accurate and factual. These aren't my ideas. You could easily pick up a good American history book and find the same information.
Arguing that the concept of protecting "public interest" did not exist in the 1890s and that it significantly differs from protecting the consumer is disingeneous. We use different terms but the rationale remains the same.
Whether Sherman promoted this legislation to advance specific business goals is arguable but it is highly unlikely that it was not sold to the public in the name of protecting their interests. That's no different from today and more recent consumer protection laws.
What you are stating is not accurate nor factual but personal interpretation of past events. If it is so easy to find citations from history books that unambigously state that the sherman act was not created to protect public interest from monopolies feel free to do so.
I never said protecting competition was an "end unto itself." It had a purpose, just not the one you assume it must be from your current frame of reference.
I assume nothing. I gave you two specific cites from both the FTC and the DoJ about how they view it. Since you brought up the issue of what the Acts were all about, here are DoJ's specific views on the Acts (excerpted from their website; bold typeface mine):
What Are the Federal Antitrust Laws, and What Do They Prohibit?
There are three major federal antitrust laws: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The Sherman Antitrust Act has stood since 1890 as the principal law expressing our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results for consumers. ......The 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. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only 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 is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors--that is competition working properly. ..........
The Clayton Act is a civil statute (carrying no criminal penalties) that was passed in 1914 and significantly amended in 1950. The Clayton Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under the Act, the government challenges those mergers that a careful economic analysis shows are likely to increase prices to consumers. ...........
You can ignore it, of course (as you apparently have with every substantive point I've made in our discussion).
I think I might take your point a bit further: Anti-trust laws were created by big business, for big business. If you were an evil businessman with access to the might and power of government, think about how you could use the system to benefit yourself. From everything I have learned about government, almost every law and regulation is designed to please special interest groups behind the scenes, and then the politicians invent a public relations story.
Essentially, yes. The prevailing 19th century view at least in the U.S. was that the primary mission of government was to promote economic development. (Or as Calvin Coolidge put it, "The business of America is business.") Trusts, cartels, and other conspiracies to restrain trade were seen as the enemies of capitalism. Arguments for intervening in markets to prevent monopolistic behaviors could be found in Adam Smith, so it's not like they were diving off the deep end to become the champions of the little people by passing antitrust laws. That wasn't the purpose. The purpose was aiding business.
The fundamental role of antitrust law is to prevent consumers from getting gouged by monopolies and collusive firms, not to legislate against ignorance and stupidity.
When it morphs into the latter -- which it seems to have, in the EU -- we have let the government intrude way too much into our lives and into the manner in which our businesses are run.
When you have the market share Microsoft has, one of the most common and easiest ways to gouge consumers is to prey on their ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as stupidity, and not knowing that there are alternatives to IE definitely does not make one stupid.
Rightfully or wrongfully, Microsoft is in a difficult situation. Everything they include with Windows has an impact on software markets, and their programs don't have have to be as good as their competition to gain market share. You better believe that there would be a lawsuit if Microsoft suddenly bundled Microsoft Security Essentials with Windows. In one fell swoop they would completely undermine paid anti-virus programs like Norton.
With respect to this regulation, I don't know why anyone would be against it, unless you were a Microsoft supporter and felt that bundling IE was an unfair advantage that you wanted to keep. Choice is good.