Taking Bites from the Appleby S.M. Oliva
Mises Economics Blog
Jun. 13, 2010
Swedish Journalist Who Worked To Demystify No-Go Zones Gets Shot In No-Go Zone
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau Says All Men Should Be Feminists, Calls For End to 'Bro Culture'
Disturbing Video Shows Brutal Assault On Elderly Teacher by Middle School Students
Here's The Source Of The 'End-of-World Prediction' That Interrupted TV Broadcasts in Orange County
CNN Cuts Off Black Trump Supporter After He Rejects Concept Of 'White Guilt'
It’s starting to look like the Federal Trade Commission’s aborted “review” of the Google-AdMob merger was just a pretext towards the regulator’s real target, Apple Inc. The FTC said it decided not to attack Google due to Apple’s recent moves in the mobile web advertising market. And now the FTC is poised to attack Apple, reports the Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Federal Trade Commission will investigate whether Apple Inc.’s business practices harm competition in the market for software used on mobile devices, people familiar with the situation said.Two things that should stick out here: First, the fact that the DOJ and FTC have to “negotiate” to decide who gets jurisdiction confirms that antitrust is not a valid form of “law.” If there’s no way to know in advance who enforces the law -- to say nothing of what the law actually prohibits -- then what you have is a glorified form of mob rule.
Second, the Journal’s refusal to identify the “antitrust enforcers” who are calling for preemptive attacks on Apple helps explain why these same “enforcers” are trying their best to save traditional, newspaper-based journalism. The Journal acts as a one-way conduit for mid-level bureaucrats to safely level anonymous threats against private companies. There’s little risk that these taxpayer-funded lawyers will be identified or held accountable for their statements.
Now as to the merits of this story, I’d just say one thing. The FTC is not concerned about hypothetical firms that might be shut out of the market by Apple. One can’t protect that which doesn’t exist. No, the FTC is concerned because other existing companies -- i.e., Adobe and Google -- diverted a portion of their sizable resources away from developing better products and towards unproductive lobbyists (er, antitrust counsel). The FTC wants to encourage this trend, because of course many of today’s “antitrust enforcers” would like to become unproductive lobbyists themselves.