Korea is first in open platforms! Korea has rejected digital commerce monopolies and recognized open platforms as a right. This marks a major milestone in the 45-year history of personal computing. It began in Cupertino, but the forefront today is in Seoul.https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1432644358646415363 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @cmuratori
Can someone please explain. If I take risks, invest money, hire people, and manage my business in such a way that it becomes one of the dominant platforms for app distribution, why am I not free to charge whatever fee I want to make things happen IN the platform that I built?
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @meglio @TimSweeneyEpic
I am happy to explain, but obviously Twitter is a tough platform for explaining. I would start with the basic underlying premise, which is that if you want South Korea to enforce Apple's intellectual property (which Apple needs to survive), it must obey South Korea law.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
@cmuratori, thanks! just thinking aloud, if the consumer still has the choice to use an entirely different platform, how does the Law manage to qualify it as tying and, even worse, classify it a monopoly? Or is my understanding of “monopoly” very limited?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meglio @TimSweeneyEpic
It's (old) US law, so, it's incredibly tortured and it's not straightforward to apply. It would take a long time to explain how it works, but the TL;DR answer is that only a court of law can decide what the "relevant market" is - and this is where the battle is mostly fought.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But separately, one thing that many people get wrong is that you don't have to _be_ a monopoly to be sanctioned under anti-trust law. What you have to be is _trying_ to be a monopoly :)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
So for example here is a section of the Clayton Act, (highlight mine):pic.twitter.com/17MZaDRY8k
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
So people kind of have the wrong idea about what antitrust law is supposed to do. It's not about identifying monopolies. It's about identifying anti-competitive practices which harm consumers.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
You don't actually have to prove anybody is a monopoly to prove that their practice was anti-competitive. It _helps_, because it is an easy way to show that the consumer didn't have a choice.
-
-
In Eastman Kodak, for example, Kodak was eventually found to be conducting anti-competitive practices by attempting to monopolize the parts and labor for repairing Kodak equipment _even though_ Kodak equipment wasn't even close to 50% of the principle market, let alone 100%.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.