> it gave away its new product for no or low cost to existing clients, and bundled it with existing product lines. In a society with functional antitrust laws, such activity would be illegal. But alas.
I find this statement highly suspect. What kind of world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas.
I see Microsoft integrating Teams into their productivity product bundle as feature; not a bug. Otherwise, we run the risk of creating separate product areas and none of them working well together — it’a going to be a minor pain in the butt to email <user@outlook.com> with the pdf tchalla@ shared on Slack; deal with formatted paste/copy & whatever else issues.
I mean, products being integrated is the whole MO of companies like Apple, Tesla and literally every other company making physical things. Sure, you can sacrifice the integration for other features like breadth of choice, specialized user needs etc, but proposing regulations to keep them distinct and separate?! That modesty sound right, imho
> we run the risk of creating separate product areas and none of them working well together
or, have mandated open apis that _force_ products to integrate.
That's what the web is today (mostly). Links, and embedable content (like frames). APIs and data.
The reason companies don't do this - as demonstrated fairly recently by google with their removal of xmpp protocols from google chat - is that open apis prevent lock. Open apis allows others to compete, and it is not in the interest of the existing incumbent.
IBM made a crucial mistake that apple didn't make when IBM opened the specs for their IBM compatible machines and drove down the price of PCs to what you see today - otherwise, i would predict that PCs would be just as expensive and incompatible as apple computers were.
I have no idea how that happened, but one day, I found Teams suddenly automatically installed on my spouses computer; and not only auto-installed, but it auto-started on Windows start.
How? Why? It was probably bundled with Office and/or Windows.
MS got news-breaking fine for far less with Netscape before. But, nobody cares in 2020.
The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors. On the console market you can it see very clearly, although here two behemoths are fighting it out.
Following Microsofts own statements and that from their sales team, Teams was indeed free to lure more users.
I don't think this particular issue is a problem, but the overall structure of tech enterprises is a problem. At least when it hits consumers instead of competitors at one point.
Many people using Outlook run Teams meetings, because it's just one button click away in Outlook. Compare to others where you have to go to a different tool and create a meeting and copy-paste a link.
The antitrust way would be to have Outlook have buttons for a lot of different meeting services out of the box. Many don't require installing any software (Google meet for example). It's all just API:s.
When the cost of replication moves towards zero, the loss leaders pricing move towards free.
My gut tells me this is probably quite bad overall because it is de facto total market control but only for those that are either incumbents or can somehow compete with free. It smells of AT&T, Comcast, and other “locked in” vendors, aka the most loathed companies in the nation.
At a minimum it raises the bar of entry to a market.
The software competitive scene is fairly good at the moment, and the open web remains an escape hatch, but the risk of too tight integration is that startups become impossible.
I agree with that. The market is full of chat software, some better, some worse. Microsoft for example had Skype (for Business). All they did is the consequent next step and integrate chat with the rest of their productivity suite (as everyone else in the market does). They basically follow Google Workspaces which innovated many things in the last 10 years. It is an oligarchy but it is not that Microsoft is owning the market.
I think it is sad that Slack is loosing independence in the the market. However, I blame investors far more than the market. When I understand it right, they yearly profit is in the 100s of millions. It is a financial decision of them.
I am not the biggest supporter of MS’s anti competitive nature.
But I find the complaints against Teams to be suspect. Primarily because Teams is not adding anything new to the MS office bundle. It’s a slightly better replacement (arguably!) for Skype.
There’s barely a feature in MS Teams that isn’t, at best, an enhancement on what MS was already delivering within Skype.
An off the cuff idea I haven't really thought through the implications of:
What if these (somewhat arbitrary) product categories were enforced, but instead of preventing different products from integrating, we mandated they be composable over documented APIs?
That way we could get some of the benefits of integration, but without the intensely anti competitive nature of walled garden apps?
IMO integration will force us stuck in a point of local optimum, Apple,Tesla,Microsoft,Google will decide what this point is and you will have to like it, changing a wallpaper will need to be approved, starting an application will be also approved and logged, social media apps or groups will also be censored to protect you. You will not be able to tweak a color or replace the shitty browser with a better one (Microsoft would have loved to have Apple privileges and force all it's users to use IE).
If you don't like regulators deviding, maybe we should ask users ?
Agreed. It sounds like the author is envisioning a society where regulators have a hell of a lot of power- would every price change a company made need to be given the OK? I guess the litagators would have a field day. Doesn't every profitable company have a monopoly on its niche space? Not all monopolies are equal
In my view, it would probably be a non-issue if the "anti-trust" regulations simply required interoperability to a sufficient degree. Then you can bundle and integrate to your hearts-content, but you have to stick to open APIs or allow easy usage of your own API freely.
>> I see Microsoft integrating Teams into their productivity product bundle as feature.
I agree with you on details, but with Matt on the overall sentiment.
Most thinking on monopolies is pretty flawed, based in legalistic precedent and analogy to near anecdotes. The 1998 antitrust case against MSFT's bundling of IE to kill netscape made sense in regards to precedent (eg IBM) and economic theory. It was never the primary issue irl and the court didn't fix it despite finding against msft.
I don't think a regulator or court can just pinpoint "monopolistic behaviours" and fix it. The MSFT case proves the point. Prosecutors won, but it didn't matter much. IE still dominated. Competition waned for a while. In retrospect, the whole thing seems irrelevant or trivial to MSFT's monopoly as a whole. We are not better or worse of because of the case, probably.
A recent example is Adwords' EU case. Their dominant market share in search and search ads gave them all their minor competitors' data which was used to maintain their monopoly. The court gave google a $1.5bn fine that changed nothing. Now that precedent will be used in the US & EU to go after Amazon. They clearly use their marketplace to gain data for their retail business and skim any cream uncovered by their partners.
Whatever specific anti-competition behaviours prosecutors were able to uncover and prove are anecdotal. They "prove" that monopoly issues exist, but they aren't necessarily the actual problem. Just one specific symptom.
This is the problem. Monopolistic behaviours, individually are 90% under-water, ilegible, hard to prosecute and fixing the narrow issue you have identified and proved in court doesn't necessarily help. Some specific monopolistic behaviour isn't the point.
That said, I agree with Matt at the less specific level. Monopolies are a problem, and growing rapidly. I just think these things have to be addressed very broadly to make any difference. Classify monopolies as monopolies and apply specific rules to them. For example, "the right to be forgotten," cookie laws, data disclosure mandates, user generated copyright violations... all these highly relevant to a Google or FB. They're not as important, and much more burdensome, for the average business. These laws often exist for monopolies. Apply them specifically to them. A lot of the section 230 discussion should (imo) take this direction.
I would even be in favour of a monopolism tax. Own over 20% of the digital ad market, pay an excise tax on revenue. This would encourage competition and diversity, and also makes sense considering that such monopolies generate extra profits at the expense of the economy. Tax all monopoly mergers, or ban them... not specific mergers. IE, FB have a monopolistic position in social media. No mergers for you. Let those acquired companies compete with FB instead of widening its moat.
If a court/legislator is going into the nitty gritty of how the monopoly works, what monopolistic behaviours exist and such... the actions still needs to be broad. If amazon or google are using a monopoly over a (literal) marketplace to secure a monopoly as a supplier to that marketplace.... break that up. Make adwords a separate company to search. Separate amazon's marketplace business from the retail business. Don't let them create a delivery business. etc.
Trying to act narrowly is pointless. Any ruling on the nuances of how amazon uses data from their marketplace business to help their retail business is pointless. Instead, recognize that there's a structural problem. Amazon run the market and also a retail business. They're using that monopolistically. That's a bad structure, and any specific bad thing amazon does within that structure is not relevant. The structure itself is relevant. That's the whole premise of antitrust in the first place.
Take a look at the issue from another point of view. Predatory pricing and bundling are two destructive ways to compete.
Predatory pricing is just dumping. You sell something below cost until your competition goes out of business, then you either raise prices or hold prices constant but reduce quality (eg Amazon selling counterfeit books).
Bundling is requiring people to purchase A+B in combination. An example would be a gourmet ice-cream maker that is actually famous for chocolate but only sells 50% chocolate, 50% vanilla.
You can see this move as a combination of bundling and predatory pricing. Microsoft did this with Defender too. Their strategy is to starve nascent competitors for revenue in a niche area so they can never mount a direct attack on the core business.
the reason they don’t integrate well is it’s not in their interests, having already consumed global markets they are out of growth and need to own the whole ecosystem to grow. imagine if Peco electricity only worked with Peco houses.
It's caused by cheap money. Google's recent $10B bond offering sold at rates as low as 0.45%. When capital is this cheap, the math to make acquisitions work is easy. If rates rise to say 5%, the discounted cash flow models all fall apart. It's one more example of printing money and keeping rates near 0 increasing inequality.
What is the problem with the company’s owners being the largest beneficiaries in a transaction in which they are choosing to buy or sell their own assets?
1. Competition for the sake of competition is not an end in itself. Competition is a means to an end, not a promise or guarantee. See also: the T-Mobile and Sprint merger.
2. New businesses are started as new opportunities arise. Wherever a market inefficiency is perceived, there are people who seek to exploit this inefficiency for their own benefit. Even the businesses that fail employ some people for some time; it’s not important that the same businesses that exist today continue to exist in perpetuity, but that the business environment continues to encourage people to take new risks and start new ventures.
3. Stop bailing out failing businesses. Would it hurt the S&P 500 if a FAANG company filed for bankruptcy? Yes, but that’s irrelevant. Socializing losses only encourages more businesses to take on more risk than would normally be acceptable to them and their shareholders if they think there’s a good chance they’ll be bailed out by taxpayers. Sometimes businesses, even big businesses fail, and that’s part of the environment, not something to be prevented at all costs. The stock market is a reflection of market activity, it isn’t the market.
It doesn't benefit anyone outside the groups you mention, you're right. Many people outside those groups are lured by the false promise that they too could make it into one of those groups, so they work against their own interest.
0. Founders, non-executive employees, and even sometimes end-users can benefit, just as much or more than executives or shareholders.
1. Not really true in general, because the buyee often was not in direct competition with the buyer. In specifics, sure sometimes the buyee is bought and killed, and sure sometimes "build it (and compete)" was actually in consideration at buyer -- though as an aside if they did build it instead of buy it we'd still get complaints from other people on finding a way to discourage product expansion and vertical integration. One could also say here that by eliminating middlemen (if the buyer intends to integrate that is) efficiency is increased, but this is not necessarily general either.
2. Marginally less employer competition, and perhaps not even that, because under 0 we've got a group of beneficiaries who may now be able to form or fund new companies, in direct competition or not. Avoid static pie thinking. Related here is an opposing concern that preventing mergers can result in a lower cap on wages, though this is not general either. I do concede that if we expand the pool of employees beyond software engineers, some sort of layoff protection may be desirable, because technically and instantaneously yes the now-irrelevant laid off accountants for example at the buyee have a tighter market to compete in as buyer doesn't want them and their old job has vanished. (Though many layoff packages already implicitly do something like this, the net effect is to give the individual more time to find a role at a different firm or else retool because the market has reallocated the demand for their role.)
3. Being too big to fail isn't really related with the scope of a company's product catalog. Fragility is a big topic.
Rather than spouting my own ideological biases and principles I'd rather ask some numbers questions. Specifically what thresholds would you consider reasonable before introducing your discouragements/blockers. #2 seems most tractable to start with -- say the US has 5 million software engineers, Facebook has 50,000 of them, and wants to acquire another company with 15,000 software engineers. Is the shift above 1% of employees in the field to 1.3% objectionable? Or do we not worry until a single firm employs say 30% of the field? Is the relative increase of 0.3% too big a merger regardless of the starting point? Or is there even such a too-big relative size and we should just look at the final total? Should we count the total employees at each company, or rather subdivide even further taking into account sales, accountants, and perhaps even types of software engineers?
"We need to find a way to discourage mega-mergers." Why? If YouTube or Instagram didn't get acquired, Google and Facebook would find a way to destroy them just like Microsoft did to Netscape and they wouldn't exist anymore but in essence they are great products and there are no other products like them on the market. Once they get destroyed there is less competition and at least when they are alive you can look up to them for quality of service and motivation to compete.
I don’t know. I’m feeling the need for large gatekeepers especially in the media space. I have lost faith in the public’s ability to make reasoned decisions for themselves.
The article vastly underestimates the desire of large enterprises to deal with only a handful of IT vendors. Sure, no enterprise wants monopoly pricing, but they also don’t want dozens upon dozens of different IT vendors to deal with.
This is where this kind of companies come into play : https://indie.host [french link]
You have one person to talk to, they manage RocketChat, NextCloud (with an office suite, agenda, files), Jitsi, Discourse, CodiMD, all of this with a single sign on for your coworkers.
All for 10€/month/user.
It's not as integrated as say a full microsoft suite, but probably one order cheaper.
It made a compelling case for breaking up large corporations in the interest of reducing inequality (via more competition and reduced consumer prices). However, it's the only book I've read on the subject so am unsure if it's a widely held and reliably informed view.
For commenters that are wondering what world we'd be living in with functional anti-trust laws, the book suggests we look to the US between the late 1930's and the early 1980s.
Matt Stoller has published dozens of whiny posts about supposed monopolies. Yet, he has yet to once mention the "consumer welfare standard" [1] because it would blow the thesis apart in every single post.
He mentions it all the time. The index to his book has 11 references to the "consumer rights movement". A central premise of his book is that the "Watergate babies" shifted antitrust law from a focus on democratic control of corporate power to so-called "consumer rights".
Bork's tedious tome on antitrust was birthed directly from Aaron Director's Antitrust Project at the University of Chicago. (Bork credits Director fatuously in his introductin.)
cafed00d|5 years ago
I find this statement highly suspect. What kind of world do we want to live in where regulators delineate product areas.
I see Microsoft integrating Teams into their productivity product bundle as feature; not a bug. Otherwise, we run the risk of creating separate product areas and none of them working well together — it’a going to be a minor pain in the butt to email <user@outlook.com> with the pdf tchalla@ shared on Slack; deal with formatted paste/copy & whatever else issues.
I mean, products being integrated is the whole MO of companies like Apple, Tesla and literally every other company making physical things. Sure, you can sacrifice the integration for other features like breadth of choice, specialized user needs etc, but proposing regulations to keep them distinct and separate?! That modesty sound right, imho
chii|5 years ago
or, have mandated open apis that _force_ products to integrate.
That's what the web is today (mostly). Links, and embedable content (like frames). APIs and data.
The reason companies don't do this - as demonstrated fairly recently by google with their removal of xmpp protocols from google chat - is that open apis prevent lock. Open apis allows others to compete, and it is not in the interest of the existing incumbent.
IBM made a crucial mistake that apple didn't make when IBM opened the specs for their IBM compatible machines and drove down the price of PCs to what you see today - otherwise, i would predict that PCs would be just as expensive and incompatible as apple computers were.
shp0ngle|5 years ago
How? Why? It was probably bundled with Office and/or Windows.
MS got news-breaking fine for far less with Netscape before. But, nobody cares in 2020.
raxxorrax|5 years ago
Following Microsofts own statements and that from their sales team, Teams was indeed free to lure more users.
I don't think this particular issue is a problem, but the overall structure of tech enterprises is a problem. At least when it hits consumers instead of competitors at one point.
Gravityloss|5 years ago
The antitrust way would be to have Outlook have buttons for a lot of different meeting services out of the box. Many don't require installing any software (Google meet for example). It's all just API:s.
taurath|5 years ago
My gut tells me this is probably quite bad overall because it is de facto total market control but only for those that are either incumbents or can somehow compete with free. It smells of AT&T, Comcast, and other “locked in” vendors, aka the most loathed companies in the nation.
At a minimum it raises the bar of entry to a market.
pjc50|5 years ago
The software competitive scene is fairly good at the moment, and the open web remains an escape hatch, but the risk of too tight integration is that startups become impossible.
oaiey|5 years ago
I think it is sad that Slack is loosing independence in the the market. However, I blame investors far more than the market. When I understand it right, they yearly profit is in the 100s of millions. It is a financial decision of them.
addicted|5 years ago
But I find the complaints against Teams to be suspect. Primarily because Teams is not adding anything new to the MS office bundle. It’s a slightly better replacement (arguably!) for Skype.
There’s barely a feature in MS Teams that isn’t, at best, an enhancement on what MS was already delivering within Skype.
Hammershaft|5 years ago
What if these (somewhat arbitrary) product categories were enforced, but instead of preventing different products from integrating, we mandated they be composable over documented APIs?
That way we could get some of the benefits of integration, but without the intensely anti competitive nature of walled garden apps?
simion314|5 years ago
If you don't like regulators deviding, maybe we should ask users ?
lucideer|5 years ago
I'd love to try living in this world. What are the downsides you see?
cblconfederate|5 years ago
The same world where they dictate what is intellectual property
nverno|5 years ago
zo1|5 years ago
dalbasal|5 years ago
I agree with you on details, but with Matt on the overall sentiment.
Most thinking on monopolies is pretty flawed, based in legalistic precedent and analogy to near anecdotes. The 1998 antitrust case against MSFT's bundling of IE to kill netscape made sense in regards to precedent (eg IBM) and economic theory. It was never the primary issue irl and the court didn't fix it despite finding against msft.
I don't think a regulator or court can just pinpoint "monopolistic behaviours" and fix it. The MSFT case proves the point. Prosecutors won, but it didn't matter much. IE still dominated. Competition waned for a while. In retrospect, the whole thing seems irrelevant or trivial to MSFT's monopoly as a whole. We are not better or worse of because of the case, probably.
A recent example is Adwords' EU case. Their dominant market share in search and search ads gave them all their minor competitors' data which was used to maintain their monopoly. The court gave google a $1.5bn fine that changed nothing. Now that precedent will be used in the US & EU to go after Amazon. They clearly use their marketplace to gain data for their retail business and skim any cream uncovered by their partners.
Whatever specific anti-competition behaviours prosecutors were able to uncover and prove are anecdotal. They "prove" that monopoly issues exist, but they aren't necessarily the actual problem. Just one specific symptom.
This is the problem. Monopolistic behaviours, individually are 90% under-water, ilegible, hard to prosecute and fixing the narrow issue you have identified and proved in court doesn't necessarily help. Some specific monopolistic behaviour isn't the point.
That said, I agree with Matt at the less specific level. Monopolies are a problem, and growing rapidly. I just think these things have to be addressed very broadly to make any difference. Classify monopolies as monopolies and apply specific rules to them. For example, "the right to be forgotten," cookie laws, data disclosure mandates, user generated copyright violations... all these highly relevant to a Google or FB. They're not as important, and much more burdensome, for the average business. These laws often exist for monopolies. Apply them specifically to them. A lot of the section 230 discussion should (imo) take this direction.
I would even be in favour of a monopolism tax. Own over 20% of the digital ad market, pay an excise tax on revenue. This would encourage competition and diversity, and also makes sense considering that such monopolies generate extra profits at the expense of the economy. Tax all monopoly mergers, or ban them... not specific mergers. IE, FB have a monopolistic position in social media. No mergers for you. Let those acquired companies compete with FB instead of widening its moat.
If a court/legislator is going into the nitty gritty of how the monopoly works, what monopolistic behaviours exist and such... the actions still needs to be broad. If amazon or google are using a monopoly over a (literal) marketplace to secure a monopoly as a supplier to that marketplace.... break that up. Make adwords a separate company to search. Separate amazon's marketplace business from the retail business. Don't let them create a delivery business. etc.
Trying to act narrowly is pointless. Any ruling on the nuances of how amazon uses data from their marketplace business to help their retail business is pointless. Instead, recognize that there's a structural problem. Amazon run the market and also a retail business. They're using that monopolistically. That's a bad structure, and any specific bad thing amazon does within that structure is not relevant. The structure itself is relevant. That's the whole premise of antitrust in the first place.
rmrfstar|5 years ago
Predatory pricing is just dumping. You sell something below cost until your competition goes out of business, then you either raise prices or hold prices constant but reduce quality (eg Amazon selling counterfeit books).
Bundling is requiring people to purchase A+B in combination. An example would be a gourmet ice-cream maker that is actually famous for chocolate but only sells 50% chocolate, 50% vanilla.
You can see this move as a combination of bundling and predatory pricing. Microsoft did this with Defender too. Their strategy is to starve nascent competitors for revenue in a niche area so they can never mount a direct attack on the core business.
cafed00d|5 years ago
> That modesty sound right, imho
Meant to say: "That doesn't sound right, imho"
dustingetz|5 years ago
jakozaur|5 years ago
We need to find a way to discourage mega-mergers. Either through antitrust law or progressive taxation on mega mergers starting at few $1Bln.
1. The economy is a whole losses efficiency due to lack of competition.
2. Less competition for talent.
3. More fragile economy (e.g. too big to fail).
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/11/15/across-t...
https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-th...
thesausageking|5 years ago
SllX|5 years ago
1. Competition for the sake of competition is not an end in itself. Competition is a means to an end, not a promise or guarantee. See also: the T-Mobile and Sprint merger.
2. New businesses are started as new opportunities arise. Wherever a market inefficiency is perceived, there are people who seek to exploit this inefficiency for their own benefit. Even the businesses that fail employ some people for some time; it’s not important that the same businesses that exist today continue to exist in perpetuity, but that the business environment continues to encourage people to take new risks and start new ventures.
3. Stop bailing out failing businesses. Would it hurt the S&P 500 if a FAANG company filed for bankruptcy? Yes, but that’s irrelevant. Socializing losses only encourages more businesses to take on more risk than would normally be acceptable to them and their shareholders if they think there’s a good chance they’ll be bailed out by taxpayers. Sometimes businesses, even big businesses fail, and that’s part of the environment, not something to be prevented at all costs. The stock market is a reflection of market activity, it isn’t the market.
minikites|5 years ago
http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
Jach|5 years ago
1. Not really true in general, because the buyee often was not in direct competition with the buyer. In specifics, sure sometimes the buyee is bought and killed, and sure sometimes "build it (and compete)" was actually in consideration at buyer -- though as an aside if they did build it instead of buy it we'd still get complaints from other people on finding a way to discourage product expansion and vertical integration. One could also say here that by eliminating middlemen (if the buyer intends to integrate that is) efficiency is increased, but this is not necessarily general either.
2. Marginally less employer competition, and perhaps not even that, because under 0 we've got a group of beneficiaries who may now be able to form or fund new companies, in direct competition or not. Avoid static pie thinking. Related here is an opposing concern that preventing mergers can result in a lower cap on wages, though this is not general either. I do concede that if we expand the pool of employees beyond software engineers, some sort of layoff protection may be desirable, because technically and instantaneously yes the now-irrelevant laid off accountants for example at the buyee have a tighter market to compete in as buyer doesn't want them and their old job has vanished. (Though many layoff packages already implicitly do something like this, the net effect is to give the individual more time to find a role at a different firm or else retool because the market has reallocated the demand for their role.)
3. Being too big to fail isn't really related with the scope of a company's product catalog. Fragility is a big topic.
Rather than spouting my own ideological biases and principles I'd rather ask some numbers questions. Specifically what thresholds would you consider reasonable before introducing your discouragements/blockers. #2 seems most tractable to start with -- say the US has 5 million software engineers, Facebook has 50,000 of them, and wants to acquire another company with 15,000 software engineers. Is the shift above 1% of employees in the field to 1.3% objectionable? Or do we not worry until a single firm employs say 30% of the field? Is the relative increase of 0.3% too big a merger regardless of the starting point? Or is there even such a too-big relative size and we should just look at the final total? Should we count the total employees at each company, or rather subdivide even further taking into account sales, accountants, and perhaps even types of software engineers?
mrkramer|5 years ago
badconvincer|5 years ago
ralph84|5 years ago
MattGaiser|5 years ago
maelito|5 years ago
You have one person to talk to, they manage RocketChat, NextCloud (with an office suite, agenda, files), Jitsi, Discourse, CodiMD, all of this with a single sign on for your coworkers.
All for 10€/month/user.
It's not as integrated as say a full microsoft suite, but probably one order cheaper.
fakename11|5 years ago
moltar|5 years ago
qz2|5 years ago
baby|5 years ago
Throwaway1771|5 years ago
kieranmaine|5 years ago
It made a compelling case for breaking up large corporations in the interest of reducing inequality (via more competition and reduced consumer prices). However, it's the only book I've read on the subject so am unsure if it's a widely held and reliably informed view.
For commenters that are wondering what world we'd be living in with functional anti-trust laws, the book suggests we look to the US between the late 1930's and the early 1980s.
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
willyg123|5 years ago
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amattstoller.substack....
rmrfstar|5 years ago
dredmorbius|5 years ago
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLATIVW2S3zKMbVlnAHAPR0sHZ...
Bork's tedious tome on antitrust was birthed directly from Aaron Director's Antitrust Project at the University of Chicago. (Bork credits Director fatuously in his introductin.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Director