3,882
edits
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
* The Microsoft case proved that the enforcement of the law does not kill innovation but instead allowed for more entrants later on (53:30) | * The Microsoft case proved that the enforcement of the law does not kill innovation but instead allowed for more entrants later on (53:30) | ||
* Changing the conservative view on antitrust in the US will be an incremental fight. The current FTC leader is moving in the right direction by updating some policy guidelines and bringing some cases, though they will still win some and lose some (56:30). | * Changing the conservative view on antitrust in the US will be an incremental fight. The current FTC leader is moving in the right direction by updating some policy guidelines and bringing some cases, though they will still win some and lose some (56:30). | ||
* While Congress could change the law to deal with these companies, this route is probably hopeless. So, the route currently remains the same as they took with Microsoft back then, but it is a very difficult fight to make and win since the due diligence needed is challenging | * '''While Congress could change the law to deal with these companies, this route is probably hopeless. So, the route currently remains the same as they took with Microsoft back then, but it is a very difficult fight to make and win since the due diligence needed is challenging for DOJ and FTC (they need good economics, good documents, good witnesses, good lawyering, etc)''' (56:00). | ||
=== <big>BI Partisan Support</big> === | === <big>BI Partisan Support</big> === | ||
== References == | == References == |