Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
It's a matter of economic theory and philosophy. In general, the free market economic theory holds that over time the only way a monopoly can survive is with the aid of the government. Thus, anti-trust isn't really needed as long as the government stays out of the picture.
To take the example of the ebook case. If the major publishers get together and set a price for ebooks, then over time, consumers will buy from cheaper authors and publishing companies. The big 5 can not enforce a price point one other entities. The same goes for agency pricing. The big 5 can insist on agency pricing, but if other publishers and independent authors are willing to allow the ebook store to set the price, then customers will tend to buy more of the cheaper books over time. In both cases, there is no need for anti-trust acts since any attempt to fix prices, or control supplies tends to fail over time.
|
That's all well and good, but I find it hard to rationalize all that in a landscape where anti-trust regulations and government intervention are a
reality. I also find it hard to put much stock in the opinions and interpretations (concerning the specifics about the rulings of this and other anti-trust cases) of those who openly admit to seeing no need for anti-trust regulation in the first place. It's the ultimate bias: "Apple is innocent because we believe anti-trust regulation (and government intervention in general) sucks."
It's not a totally
unworthy sentiment. It just doesn't have any bearing on
this case.
Now.