TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

FTC restores rigorous enforcement of law banning unfair methods of competition

500 点作者 nabilhat超过 2 年前

19 条评论

nerdponx超过 2 年前
As always, it&#x27;s interesting to read any dissent to what sounds like &quot;obviously a good thing&quot;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ftc.gov&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;ftc_gov&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;P221202Section5PolicyWilsonDissentStmt.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ftc.gov&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;ftc_gov&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;P221202Section5...</a><p>There is also an interesting bit of back-and-forth between the dissent and one of the supporting statements: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ftc.gov&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;ftc_gov&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;Section5PolicyStmtKhanSlaughterBedoyaStmt.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ftc.gov&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;ftc_gov&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;Section5PolicyS...</a><p>I&#x27;m still inclined to think it&#x27;s a good thing. I&#x27;m not educated enough on this topic to agree or disagree with any of the commissioners&#x27; opinions, but the FTC is clearly interested in sending a signal to the public.<p>I&#x27;m moderately optimistic, although it will be interesting to see what happens after the next presidential election. It&#x27;s possible that the commissioners are concerned about it, and are trying to make some kind of mark and set precedent before they&#x27;re all fired and replaced if a Republican (Trump?) takes office in 2024.
评论 #33556311 未加载
评论 #33552517 未加载
评论 #33561616 未加载
评论 #33552597 未加载
评论 #33556664 未加载
评论 #33553715 未加载
评论 #33556022 未加载
ghostbrainalpha超过 2 年前
Ticketmaster has been pissing on the FTC for 30 years.<p>I&#x27;m not crossing my fingers for much, but anything they do at this point would be awesome.
评论 #33552541 未加载
chiefalchemist超过 2 年前
&gt; Policy statement renews agency’s commitment to exercising<p>Classic Uncle Sam newspeak. If there previously was commitment, there&#x27;d be no need for restatement and&#x2F;or renewal. Put another way, this is a shameless way of saying, &quot;We&#x27;ve been slacking.&quot; Bold.<p>That aside, taking it on its word, this type of hard left turns are counter-productive. No one - business or society - likes surprises. They need to set a standard, *do their jobs*, and stick to it. They might also want to send a memo to The Fed asking they refrain from pouring gas on the fire that ultimately benefits those best positioned to capitalize on said pouring.<p>This swerve left only means there&#x27;ll eventually be a swerve right. And back again. Hardly an effective approach.
crazygringo超过 2 年前
Following the links, here&#x27;s the actual meat of what &quot;unfair methods of competition&quot; means [1, pg 9]:<p>&gt; <i>There are two key criteria to consider when evaluating whether conduct goes beyond competition on the merits. First, the conduct may be coercive, exploitative, collusive, abusive, deceptive, predatory, or involve the use of economic power of a similar nature. It may also be otherwise restrictive or exclusionary, depending on the circumstances, as discussed below. Second, the conduct must tend to negatively affect competitive conditions. This may include, for example, conduct that tends to foreclose or impair the opportunities of market participants, reduce competition between rivals, limit choice, or otherwise harm consumers.</i><p>&gt; <i>...the second part of the principle examines whether the respondent’s conduct has a tendency to generate negative consequences; for instance, raising prices, reducing output, limiting choice, lowering quality, reducing innovation, impairing other market participants, or reducing the likelihood of potential or nascent competition.</i><p>And selecting from some given examples [taken from pg 13-15]:<p>&gt; <i>loyalty rebates, tying, bundling, and exclusive dealing arrangements that have the tendency to ripen into violations of the antitrust laws by virtue of industry conditions and the respondent’s position within the industry</i><p>&gt; <i>de facto tying, bundling, exclusive dealing, or loyalty rebates that use market power in one market to entrench that power or impede competition in the same or a related market</i><p>&gt; <i>using market power in one market to gain a competitive advantage in an adjacent market by, for example, utilizing technological incompatibilities to negatively impact competition in adjacent markets</i><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ftc.gov&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;ftc_gov&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;P221202Section5PolicyStatement.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ftc.gov&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;ftc_gov&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;P221202Section5...</a>
评论 #33553410 未加载
评论 #33553005 未加载
评论 #33554707 未加载
评论 #33553444 未加载
评论 #33553435 未加载
评论 #33555401 未加载
评论 #33558710 未加载
评论 #33552651 未加载
riazrizvi超过 2 年前
A good thing, since fair methods of competition is the single differentiating policy of the USA that put it into a dominant world position over the last 200+ years. See Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson.
评论 #33552723 未加载
评论 #33557065 未加载
评论 #33553340 未加载
Zigurd超过 2 年前
Twitter&#x27;s C-level privacy, compliance, and security management resigned today (yesterday maybe?). Twitter is currently under two FTC consent decrees. Probably unrelated to anticompetitive practices, but interesting timing.
kuwoze超过 2 年前
My take on this: the stock market tanked, us congress and senate members already sold all their stocks, and now they told the FTC it&#x27;s safe to go after big tech.
评论 #33557941 未加载
Nomentatus超过 2 年前
Note that this statement, while semantically true, is highly misleading: &quot;Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act in 1914 because it was unhappy with the enforcement of the Sherman Act, the original antitrust statute.&quot; In truth, the laws were harsher vs anticompetitive conduct <i>before</i> the Sherman Act was passed, with a history going back hundreds of years (in England) under the rubrick &quot;Restraint of Trade.&quot; This was common law, not statute law.<p>The Sherman Act was the first statute, true, but its main function was to kneecap common law penalties by limiting penalty amounts. President Harrison was sincere about limiting monopolies, according to his writings, at least, but it&#x27;s not at all clear that sly John Sherman (brother of railroad president and General William Tecumsah Sherman), was.
评论 #33573859 未加载
评论 #33559646 未加载
评论 #33552932 未加载
mdorazio超过 2 年前
Unpopular opinion: I wish this law extended to startups using VC cash to offer products at artificially low prices. When done at sufficient scale (ex. Uber), it massively distorts markets and is very much anticompetitive, even if consumers benefit for some time.
评论 #33558381 未加载
评论 #33554189 未加载
评论 #33561190 未加载
评论 #33554421 未加载
评论 #33554182 未加载
seanp2k2超过 2 年前
Awesome, when can I expect to see an alternative to Comcast for high-speed (&gt;=1gbps) internet in the Bay Area? The fact that all of Silicon Valley cannot solve this problem after decades is telling of the power of their monopoly.
评论 #33553079 未加载
评论 #33552584 未加载
评论 #33552554 未加载
评论 #33552657 未加载
fmajid超过 2 年前
This won&#x27;t matter unless the courts in thrall to the Chicago School judicial activism of Robert Bork are curbed by Congress.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theamericanconservative.com&#x2F;robert-borks-america&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theamericanconservative.com&#x2F;robert-borks-america...</a><p>(this is a conservative publication that can&#x27;t be accused of having an axe to grind against Bork, BTW).
评论 #33553561 未加载
评论 #33553491 未加载
CleverLikeAnOx超过 2 年前
I wish loyalty programs would be considered unfair competition. They are a drain on society.
评论 #33552558 未加载
评论 #33553169 未加载
评论 #33552207 未加载
评论 #33552907 未加载
rdtwo超过 2 年前
So we’re going to fight mergers and acquisition’s when interest rates are so high they probably wouldn’t have happened anyway
评论 #33552817 未加载
评论 #33552667 未加载
nailer超过 2 年前
So… they’re going to do something about the app store duopoly?
评论 #33552744 未加载
评论 #33553043 未加载
评论 #33552263 未加载
评论 #33552214 未加载
评论 #33552098 未加载
wesapien超过 2 年前
I&#x27;ll believe it when I see it. These people selectively apply the rules.
评论 #33553784 未加载
评论 #33553486 未加载
评论 #33552671 未加载
ElfinTrousers超过 2 年前
This sounds nice...but talk is cheap. Let&#x27;s see what the FTC actually does before we get excited.
评论 #33553331 未加载
Communitivity超过 2 年前
With two major events in the news, I am wonder which of these (if either) may drivers for this.<p>Is it door #1: Elon Musk allegedly violating FTC restrictions with Twitter changes?<p>Or is it door #2: Binance seemingly doing a backstab of FTX and acquiring it, thereby throwing cryptoland into a panic?<p>Or is it door #3: something completely different, or a combination of both?
评论 #33552942 未加载
评论 #33553081 未加载
评论 #33553045 未加载
评论 #33555437 未加载
评论 #33552919 未加载
WalterBright超过 2 年前
When selecting a price for your product, you have three choices:<p>1. lower than the competition - unfair competition, dumping, predatory pricing<p>2. same as the competition - collusion, price fixing<p>3. higher than the competition - gouging, profiteering<p>All three price points are illegal.
评论 #33554351 未加载
评论 #33554786 未加载
评论 #33554502 未加载
评论 #33556735 未加载
评论 #33556180 未加载
评论 #33554329 未加载
评论 #33554322 未加载
shmerl超过 2 年前
So Apple is finally going to allow competing browsers on iOS and be held accountable for not doing it until now?
评论 #33558438 未加载