Slashdot Mirror
Google, Yahoo!, Apple Targeted In DoJ Antitrust Probe
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another's employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the review. The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide.' By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said. ... Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
Because that's not *anti-trust* behaviour. That's monopoly, and different.
Good luck trying to get that through the head of most Slashdotters. They are so misinformed about such topics that it's almost as laughable as when they repeat the erroneous, and contrary to established case law, claims that EULAs are nonenforceable in the US.
You're pretty much completely missing my point. Let me re-iterate: based on my experience with their past behavior (browsers), it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS is doing something to entice game developers and/or video card makers to solely develop for directX. It could very well be that directX is a better platform to design games for, and that's why most gaming companies use it, but my thought was that *gasp* maybe MS is reenforcing it's monopoly on desktops through anti-competitive behavior. Gee, that'd be a real shocker, wouldn't it? I bet you'd never expect MS to try something like that, or that they might try and use their desktop monopoly to build games for the xbox 360.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Is Obama given the authority to regulate businesses - specifically hiring practices. If we allow Obama, et al, to come in and under "anti-trust" provisions penalize these companies for NOT hiring away top talent then our nation has taken a drastic turn towards Marxism. The "hiring truce" is in no way anti-competitive in the sense that it does not affect the marketplace. We still have complete choice between any search engine. Ironically, the one oddly missing from this hiring truce is Microsoft, who is the only one to be convicted of violating anti-trust law! There is no way employments functionally produce a way to maintain market power. If you could put someone else similarly competent, in the position, you'll get a similar result.
The Russians were amazed when Obama "fired" the CEO of GM!
I don't want to hear that it "keeps wages down" or that it is a form of "non-compete". Anti-trust laws are not about jobs. They are about markets. I can use any search engine - google, yahoo, bing(wtf?) and I have plenty of hardware choices. Where I don't have enough choice though is in PC OSs. Thank you, Microsoft.
We are embarking down a dark path as a nation. Government interference in hiring practices? I can understand racial discrimination (marginally so) but a hiring truce? Give me a break.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I remind that having a monopoly on a particular product is not illegal. What is illegal is "abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position" (link). What you are saying is that gaming companies are just developing for the platform that holds 88% o the market. What I am suggesting is that there is a strong possibility that MS is doing more than just making a good platform to design games, they could be colluding with video card developers or game producers to keep it that way so that no other platform could get games, which in turn reinforces their monopoly on the OS. How do you know that MS doesn't offer an unfair advantage to developing on the directX? Are you a developer? Do you know what kinds of deals MS does with e.g., id software? I don't, that's why I'm asking.
As for consoles, can you really not see that MS is trying to use its monopoly on desktops and PC games to leverage itself into the console market? Really?
As for the Mac, don't be ridiculous, the Mac might get some of the more popular titles, but I argue that it's nowhere near the percentage of people using macs at home, AND they get them late if they do get them.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!