Facebook should be next.
Feeling that it was about to lose the suit, AT&T proposed an alternative: its breakup. It proposed that it retain control of Western Electric, Yellow Pages, the Bell trademark, Bell Labs, and AT&T Long Distance. It also proposed that it be freed from a 1956 antitrust consent decree, then administered by Judge Vincent P. Biunno in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that barred it from participating in the general sale of computers. In return, it proposed to give up ownership of the local operating companies. This last concession, it argued, would achieve the Government's goal of creating competition in supplying telephone equipment and supplies to the operative companies. The settlement was finalized on January 8, 1982, with some changes ordered by the decree court: the regional holding companies got the Bell trademark, Yellow Pages, and about half of Bell Labs.
Two, it's hard to get the exact cause-and-effect, but clearly the breakup coincides with a period of extreme telecommunications flourishing. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but it clearly didn't hurt on the telcom side.
That can't be repeated too often either. Hopefully, next Amazon and others....
Google on the other hand, well I don't know about any legit compeitor in the web search field. They do have a quais duo-poly for ads together with facebook IMHO. Not saying they have to split up, but I'd expec Google to have a much harder time argueing against anti-trust charges.
And strangely enough, I don't think that this is in any way a political stunt or politically motivated. The investigations are going for quite a while now already.
I don't know that the legal case against Amazon is quite as clear cut though. Facebook, on the other hand...
It is absolutely true so, that AWS is Amazon's cash cow making all the rest possible. And the rest is driving Amazon's cashflow. Pretty neat set-up, if you ask me.
Seriously what is with that talking point and how the hell did it get people conditioned to accept that novel nonsensical standard as "the way things should be"?
It is like an algorithim was run on random complaints against Amazon after it was told to filter on "item arrived broken" after it kept just spitting out the least helpful 1 star reviews.
Probably a fringe performer but they see big enough potential to run nation wide TV ads for something with very limited adoption.
The funny thing is that it addresses the one silly/paradoxical anti-competitive use of anti-trust claiming it is monopoly for a cross competitor to introduce new competition into a market because there are multiple involved in it means it is hardly a unique situation given there are at least four tech into finace crossover attempts.
I like watching actual movies and documentaries and I already have Prime, which has much more of those. Which raises a question about Amazon and antitrust...
Break 'em up!
Break 'em up!'
Right! I echo your sentiment precisely! It can't be repeated too often:
'Well deserved and might I say, "it's about time".
You also broke several other guidelines with this comment, such as the ones against accusations of brigading and going on about downvotes. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
If everyone just spouted their gut feeling, the comment section would be infinitely long list of people saying nothing, and HN wouldn't be an interesting place.
"The Department of Justice is expected Tuesday to charge Google with violating federal antitrust law, according to two people familiar with the matter"
What is the basis of the charge? TFA doesn't say.
> finding after a year-long investigation that the tech giant wrongfully wielded its digital dominance to the detriment of corporate rivals and consumers.
The rest of the article has details too.
I agree that it's good to ask questions about anonymously sourced material though, and to hold it in a state of suspicion, and to suspect that it's not the full story.
Since this is a leak of something the DOJ will announce, the point of leaking it could be to spin it in a way that is less favorable to the DOJ.
If google is going to be charged with violating a statute, the article should identify which statutue/s and quote from the charge sheet so that we understand what the court matter is about.
Just describing alleged behaviour as "wrongfully wielded its digital dominance" is not informative news - it is an attempt to influence opinion.