OMI legal director Sandeep Vaheesan published an article in Barron’s, reinforcing Congress’ power to enact legislation and regulations that will prohibit monopolistic behaviors in the marketplace.
Last week was unusually busy in the antitrust world. A federal judge cleared T-Mobile’s takeover of Sprint, the Federal Trade Commission announced an investigation of the many small acquisitions by the five leading tech firms, and a federal court of appeals in California heard oral argument in the FTC’s monopolization case against Qualcomm. These diverse cases share one important common element: federal judges and antitrust enforcers decided, or will decide, what constitutes fair competition. Which strategies and tactics can businesses use to grow and succeed, and which are off limits?
The dominant view, including in the antitrust world, is that competition is always good. It doesn’t, at least expressly, distinguish between healthy and unhealthy competition. Much like how teams in Major League Baseball cannot win by any means necessary, however, market competition has never been a free-for-all. One way or another, the rules set and enforced by the government allow and encourage certain business practices and restrict and prohibit others.
According to the standard narrative, market competition is associated with good outcomes for society. Firms compete against each other by lowering their prices, developing better products, and expanding their capacity to make things. Those that are attuned to popular preferences and invest in research and development thrive and become industry leaders. Firms gain market share and increase revenues and profits through practices that serve consumers and drive progress. In contrast, businesses that ignore changing customer tastes and stick with obsolete technologies stagnate and even fail.
Read the full article on Barron’s.