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."
Why do we trust google, again?
Hopefully these actions will lead to the outlawing of vaguely wide-ranging NDAs which state that employees may not work for "competitors" for X years after leaving their companies.
Why would it? That has absolutely nothing to do with what this probe is about. Secondly, such non-compete contracts are already illegal in California which already covers Google, Apple, Yahoo! and Genetech already.
It seems to me like there's another angle on this, from the perspective of the affected employees, not the customers/competitors.
By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel, doesn't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws?
And generally non-competes are ignored in other states as well I applaud California for legislatively declaring them illegal. Companies already operate at an advantage compared to individuals. They should not be able to take away my livelihood when we decide to part ways. If I am employed "at will" by them, then the business arrangement should be symmetrical. If they are willing to offer me a generous severance package, then I imagine they can have a say on where I end up. But even that should be limited.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I used to drive a Hyundai Sonata. Whenever I took it out, I would get stares because the heap would lay down a huge black cloud of exhaust when I pressed the gas. I would occasionally think about getting it fixed, but never really got around to it. Then one day I was t-boned at an intersection. The car was totaled.
In the business world, things are much the same way. Collision is just as bad as a monopoly.
"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."
They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers. What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.
"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not. What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market? They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Oh I don't know [arstechnica.com] He has been doing favors for all his supporters, Like those car Dealerships whom supported him somehow manage to stay open.
Nice red herring, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that teh whole uproar over Sotomayor was based on a single ruling out of all of her years in the federal judiciary. One ruling hardly justifies being called "pro-RIAA".
But if you want to keep Diluting yourself into "hope and change" then don't mind me, go right ahead.
Except I never voted for Obama and have disagreed with almost everything he's done. Doesn't mean I won't still correct people who are spreading nonsense.
It's an illegal restraint of trade under US antitrust law. It's not "monopoly", which is sell-side, it's "monopsony", which is buy-side.
Farmers classically face monopsony situations. This was much worse when most farm products moved only by rail. When there was only one buyer with a rail loading facility in an area, farmers were really screwed. That's why there are so many farmer's cooperatives in the US, and USDA efforts to control monopsonies. For what it was like before that, see "A Deal In Wheat", from 1903.