Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Me, I'll go with the lawyer (and the DOJ's) definition.
Low prices =/= predatory pricing and neither is loss leader/basket pricing. That is settled law.
So no: no monopoly, no monopsony, no predatory pricing.
But, hey, there is absolutely no evidence that Bezos isn't the antichrist.
The "Amazon is eeeevile" gang can hold onto that accusation a while longer.
And it even fits in with Patterson's religious war claims!
|
Lawyers tend to argue a view point to make a case, not because it's necessarily true. Amazon has around 65+% of the market and the next nearest competitor is around 12%. Pretty hard to argue that doesn't meet the legal definition of monopoly (i.e. Dominate market position). Thus, said lawyer is left to argue so odd things such as "you can't be a monopoly if you are selling something supplied by someone else". Lawyers tend to throw up all sorts of odd (the term in the business is novel) theories to see if any of them can gain traction. A lawyer's job isn't the truth, it's to convince someone to vote his client's way.