Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonReader
Anyway, it is the purpose of anti-trust action to ensure that the market isn't controled by a single party. It is a dubious result of anti-trust action when one cartel is gets removed, yet the party that effectively controls the market isn't subjected to any control.
|
Incorrect. The purpose of antitrust is to ensure that the market is controlled by whatever set of party or parties can achieve control through legal competition. It is perfectly legal to have one party outclass the others. Antitrust violations happen when conspiracy to
rig the market rather than letting the consumers choose the winner, results in harm to the consumer.
Antitrust violations happen when say, conspiracies raise prices beyond what the market calls for.
Antitrust violations can also happen when one company dominates, gains control of the market,
and abuses that legal an acceptable position to edge out newcomers from competing in the same area. That does not mean competition gets an unfair advantage over the incumbent either, in terms of special concessions for the underdog -- but the incumbent is not allowed to use their power to, say, threaten suppliers into not selling to newcomers, or charging higher prices than they'd charge the incumbent
all things (sales) being equal.
Amazon, has not done that (yet???). If they do, it will be an antitrust violation. But you cannot legally punish someone for what they
may end up doing. The same way you cannot be given a life sentence because someone who dislikes you is afraid you
may end up killing him.