Thread by @LeConcurrential

A few (non-exhaustive) points that caught my attention while reading the new Google antitrust case – U.S. version.

Link: justice.gov/opa/press-rele….

1– Although the background part talks quite a lot about "specialized search providers such as Amazon, Expedia, or Yelp", the part about anti-competitive practices is solely about (potential) foreclosure against other general search engines. Weird.

2– This is not an accurate portrait of how tech companies work. There's no certainty in digital markets – as shown by Google numerous failures (you know, Google Glass, Google+, Hangouts…). For an empirical work illustrating this point, see @competitionprof latest book.

3– Prohibiting anti-forking agreements could hurt open-source systems by endangering ecosystems' overall compatibility. See Linux…. (note: the E.C. was also concerned with these agreements in its Android decision).

4– You cannot pay with something that does not exist before the transaction (leconcurrentialiste.com/why-you-are-no…). The "if you're not paying, you're the product" type of argument is just a catchphrase I propose we get rid of. 🤗

5– NOTHING on predatory innovation? Really?! We keep on focusing on contractual agreements (because they’re easy to understand) while letting anticompetitive product design on the side. What a legal loophole! For more on that see papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… + leconcurrentialiste.com/predatory-inno…

6– Overall, several claims seem to mimic the ones previously made by the EC (although the Shopping case was also about foreclosure against Yelp & co). I understand that it might be easier for the DOJ, but (1) it will also be easier for Google (with years working on them)...

7– ...and (2) if the District Court for the District of Columbia diverges from the EC, we will see a (greater) divide between US and EU antitrust laws – with all the issues it entails (for companies, but also for regulators...). #riskybusiness.

@threadreaderapp unroll :)