This is why I find potential competition to be an unsatisfying theory. It requires a fact-intensive analysis of a firm's intentions and capabilities and speculation.
A better rule in line with Sec. 7? A presumption against *any* acquisition by a dominant or monopolistic firm.
That said, I remain at odds with the Court's fact-specific decision. Meta really can't develop a fitness app? The most well-resourced market leader in VR can't develop new capabilities?
Much more to be said about the state of innovation in Big Tech...
We're getting a preview of the FTC's case against Microsoft-Activision via the UK's competition authority. I'll be interested to see if an ALJ finds the "seeds of anti-competitive conduct" (a great turn of phrase from Falstaff) in the nascent cloud gaming market...
The Microsoft-Activision deal is in trouble, y'all. UK's competition authority confirmed what we already know. The $68.7 billion acquisition will lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and less innovation. Here's why. https://gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-could-harm-uk-gamers…
Meanwhile, Republicans can't support the ban on worker non-compete agreements? Going after banks for screwing over poor people? Banning junk fees? As my colleague
I'm far from Sarah Huckabee Sanders' target demographic but that went from hate-filled and angry to extremely boring really fast. And not a single economic policy mentioned, not one rebuttal to Biden's detailed economic agenda.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is all about "the radical left," the "woke mob," "critical race theory," "latinx," etc.
Joe Biden is like "Ticketmaster sucks."
Biden's superpower is that he doesn't use Twitter.
Privacy legislation can happen this Congress -- President has called for it, enough business is on board, republicans are roughly on board, and California's obstructionism less relevant -- key is start to early & figure out what the holdouts want
urges Congress to bolster antirust enforcement and rein in Big Tech’s power.
“Pass bipartisan legislation to strengthen antitrust enforcement and prevent big online platforms from giving their own products an unfair advantage.”
When talking about pending acquisitions, I think it's important to include the dollar amount: "Adobe's $20 billion acquisition of Figma." "Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard." There's a jaw-dropping sticker shock to bigness that shouldn't be overlooked.
Black skateboarders on the life and death of Tyre Nichols: ‘He was one of us. That could have been me’ https://theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/06/black-skateboarders-tyre-nichols?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1675751025…
Edith Penrose wrote "Theory of the Growth of the Firm" during the height of US antitrust enforcement. She described firms growing by exploiting unique organizational capabilities to develop new products and markets. Firms growing that way invested and created jobs.
That said, I remain at odds with the Court's fact-specific decision. Meta really can't develop a fitness app? The most well-resourced market leader in VR can't develop new capabilities?
Much more to be said about the state of innovation in Big Tech...
That said, I remain at odds with the Court's fact-specific decision. Meta really can't develop a fitness app? The most well-resourced market leader in VR can't develop new capabilities?
Much more to be said about the state of innovation in Big Tech...
Jack Antonoff challenges the Ticketmaster/Live Nation monopoly:
"I've asked very simple things of the industry: Let artists opt-out of dynamic pricing. Stop taxing merch. Let artists sell tickets at a price they actually believe in... We know who's making it impossible."
“Indeed, some researchers believe that California’s ban on noncompetes stoked the innovative companies and inventions that grew out of Silicon Valley, whereas tech contemporaries on the East Coast stagnated because of noncompetes.”
Business groups are panicking over the FTC's proposed ban on employee noncompetes. Here's why they shouldn't:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-employers-would-be-fine-without-noncompetes…
This is smart. The FTC achieved their objective of advancing the potential competition legal theory, but lost on a narrow determination of fact. The 9th Cir would be deferential to Davila’s determination of the facts.
Folks who thought the FTC’s case against Meta was a “long shot” and now feel vindicated would be wise to read through Davila’s decision for just how strong the FTC’s case was. Davila made the narrowest of possible line calls, and Meta/Within should feel lucky.
FTC is reportedly "pleased with the ruling," meaning Davila has likely made a very narrow fact determination based on the peculiarities of the relevant market: Creating a "killer" app is like forcing lightning to strike, and Meta's ambitions were never more than "aspirational."
The Court made a line call on the facts. It is an incredibly narrow fact determination. FTC v Meta-Within is a case about judicial discretion, not a referendum on the FTC's strategy.
It's also incorrect that the FTC didn't move the ball forward as a matter of law. There were issues of first impression in the 9th Cir. that went for the FTC.
But by advancing the law for the FTC and balking on the facts, the Court has carefully insulated itself from appeal.
Characterizing this as a failed strategy by the FTC absolves the Court of a bad determination on the facts. The opinion in FTC v Meta/Within illustrates that even a firm investing $14B+ in VR can't find a feasible means of designing a fitness app. Incredulous.
Economists see any contradictions between elements of a case much more quickly than attorneys. We have different definitions of analytic, in my considerable experience. The narrow market definition and the potential entrant arguments tripped over each other. Boom. 6/7
The takeaway will be what we've been saying all along, and what we heard at trial: Meta has largely abandoned innovation, and they may be tightening up on the Metaverse. Yesterday's earnings call was mostly about monetizing Reels using AI-based ad targeting.
Where the decision will get particularly interesting is Davila's roadmap to future success for challenging acquisitions - particularly in nascent, ephemeral tech markets - based on a potential competition theory. I suspect that's what the FTC is most happy with.
FTC is reportedly "pleased with the ruling," meaning Davila has likely made a very narrow fact determination based on the peculiarities of the relevant market: Creating a "killer" app is like forcing lightning to strike, and Meta's ambitions were never more than "aspirational."
Again, tea leaves: Judge Davila concurs with FTC's proposed relevant market, based on Brown Show qualitative indicators alone. Likewise, he agrees that the relevant market is concentrated w HHI >6000.
Still sealed, but if I had to predict where Judge Davila's ruling in FTC v Meta/Within comes down, it's on this point here. Essentially, there is no dispute that Meta had financial capability to develop their own app; it's just unlikely that Meta would have succeeded.
3. analyzing power concentration via total market share alone misses a lot: monopolization can be nhood-level, larger institutional ownership makes it harder to enforce rights, refinancing or REITs can reward predatory behavior, non-permanent selling incentivizes eviction, etc.
Reminder on why state legislatures stepping up to ban worker noncompete agreements is so important: https://boondoggle.substack.com/p/non-competes-banned…
Private equity firms often fail to fully alert antitrust regulators to certain acquisitions, a DOJ official said.
“These failures are existential threats to our merger enforcement program, and we are treating them as such."
Latest