|
@fjtorres. We tend to hold similar views and this is no exception. The last sentence of my relevant comment was about the unlikelihood of anti-trust intervention. This is basically because, as you say, Amazon actually benefits the consumer. It has been argued in these forums that the minority judgement in the Apple appeal represents the proper interpretation of US anti-trust law. This view would essentially dispense with the need for immediate consumer harm. In fact, it would even disregard immediate and serious consumer harm and even price fixing so long as it was to allow a new entrant to the market. Apparently more players in the market increases competition, even when the price of the entry of more players is the elimination of retail price competition. Some do hold that view and seem to genuinely believe that Amazon is vulnerable in relation to books. Others simply hate Amazon.
|