[apo]

Warren's blog uses the Microsoft antitrust case as a precedent:

> In the 1990s, Microsoft — the tech giant of its time — was trying to parlay its dominance in computer operating systems into dominance in the new area of web browsing. The federal government sued Microsoft for violating anti-monopoly laws and eventually reached a settlement. The government’s antitrust case against Microsoft helped clear a path for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to emerge.

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...

And then goes on to confuse the Web browser with search:

> .. Aren’t we all glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing?

There are three reasons I'd avoid this comparison as a selling point:

1. Little of substance came from the Microsoft case:

> On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[30] However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

2. The market handed Microsoft its richly-deserved smack upside the head with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007. There's no reason to believe that Google, Amazon, or Facebook will be immune to this process of marketplace disruption.

3. The AT&T Anititrust case seems more applicable in that it deals with a network. After the successful breakup, long distance rate fell.

> The breakup led to a surge of competition in the long distance telecommunications market by companies such as Sprint and MCI.[5] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

From Warren's blog again:

> First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform.

This raises the question: what's actually new here? What about the named companies is so different from previous monopolies that new laws are required?

The discussion in the New Yorker doesn't seem to address this issue. There are antitrust laws on the books. They have been used in the past. What specifically prevents them from being applied today, other than political will?