Quote:
Originally Posted by dgatwood
So although Amazon cannot possibly destroy your right to free speech, if Amazon became malicious, they could easily undermine that right in a way that would cause you material harm. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one from an antitrust perspective.
|
I have knowledge and experience in the law of my Country and in particular my State. I am not a US lawyer let alone a US Anti-Trust lawyer, but am not unfamiliar with the concepts involved. Yet your statement quoted above and your other pronouncements on US Anti-Trust law in this thread, with respect, seem to me to be utterly ridiculous and without any reasonable basis. However, I do not purport to be an expert on US anti-trust law and am willing to be corrected. Are you a US anti-trust lawyer? A US lawyer? What expertise do you possess to make these pronouncements on US anti-trust law? If none, then you are of course still entitled to your opinion on the issue, though it does help the rest of us decide what weight to give to that opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgatwood
As I said, my concern is not what Amazon does, but rather what Amazon's huge influence on the market has the potential to do in the wrong hands. The best way to explain is by suggesting a scenario:
Imagine that a bunch of powerful hedge fund managers get fed up with Amazon's frequent quarterly losses. So they get together and pool their votes to oust Amazon's board and replace them all with people who have very different values. Suppose that a week later, the new board ousts Amazon's CEO.
So now you have the same company with the same power, but it is led by a bunch of sociopaths. What impact would that have on the world of book publishing? I think the impact would be almost unimaginably huge.
One possible answer to that scenario is to say, "We'll deal with it when it happens." Another possible answer is to ensure that no company gets too big to fail. I personally prefer the latter approach.  |
Ah. Now I understand. Your argument hinges not on Amazon's actual conduct at all, but on its hypothetical future possible conduct, no matter the probability of such conduct occurring. Shades of Philip K Dick's Minority Report. You rely not on the current state of anti-trust law, but what you think it should be. In particular, it seems your basic argument is that a company should be broken-up or otherwise dealt with by anti-trust law, irrespective of its current or even future planned conduct, if:
1. It has become "too big to fail";
2. Or it has become a monopoly;
3. Or it has become a "near monopoly".
Even if this was within current anti-trust law, and it is not, I doubt Amazon qualifies on any of these points.
And by the way. Are all hedge fund managers really Sociopaths?