> Also, if you invent something so novel it makes a new market
That's innovation, which is not the issue here. Creating new markets is usually win-win (initially), even with big tech leading the way.
The more damaging issue is in taking over existing markets in ways that do not benefit that market. e.g Big tech Moving into film and TV, it's not simply a buyout with massive capital, it's about burning money in one ancillary market to benefit their primary market, but usually at a detriment to the ancillary one. They are unfairly leveraging their primary market position, tying products together, even if they don't ever make any profit in the movies, they create more and more lock-in with their platforms, making it harder and harder to not use them. The overall affect, more profit, without a chance of competition.
Bundling is explicitly recognized as antitrust concern. Using a monopoly in one area to undercut a competitor is what Microsoft and Google were both found guilty of by the DoJ, so it's funny you should mention them. It's not about being prohibited from developing new products, but in how you price them, and giving away things for free because you can afford to due to your monopoly in one area, and your competitors can't is the crime, or forcing people to buy both of your products together at the same time, is the problem, as enforced by the DoJ. Google should be free to develop Chrome, but funding all of its development from advertising profit and then giving it away for free because you can because you have a monopoly in search advertising is the problem, because Mozilla doesn't have search advertising monopoly money or desktop operating system monopoly to be able to give their browser away for free and fund further development from those sales. This is why, as part of the Google breakup is for them to sell off Chrome.
This also means google should not give away for free any of their gmail service, youtube?, chrome, maps or any such thing. All of these are funded by the ad money
> That's innovation, which is not the issue here. Creating new markets is usually win-win
You're preaching to the choir here. The post I was replying to described a policy that would have made that an issue, without some way of addressing that case.
That's innovation, which is not the issue here. Creating new markets is usually win-win (initially), even with big tech leading the way.
The more damaging issue is in taking over existing markets in ways that do not benefit that market. e.g Big tech Moving into film and TV, it's not simply a buyout with massive capital, it's about burning money in one ancillary market to benefit their primary market, but usually at a detriment to the ancillary one. They are unfairly leveraging their primary market position, tying products together, even if they don't ever make any profit in the movies, they create more and more lock-in with their platforms, making it harder and harder to not use them. The overall affect, more profit, without a chance of competition.