Talk:Tying (commerce)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the importance scale |
I just made some reasonably significant revisions. I reorganized the article a bit, adding a new section "Tying in U.S. Law" and moving some applicable material there from other sections. I added new material to the new section, more fully describing tying law in the U.S. (the definition of a tying arrangement, the relevant factors, etc.). I also added material to the discussion of the Microsoft case, which contained some errors and needed a bit more explication. The notes were changed to footnotes, as opposed to in text citation, for readability. Finally, I corrected a few errors in the introduction and throughout the piece. This is the first time I worked on Wikipedia, so hopefully these changes are helpful. --Kevin.J.Hickey (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the link to Razor and blades business model as it redirects back to this page -jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.50.48 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The article states that tying is illegal. Isn't that at best an oversimplification? Pakaran 14:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I moved the Microsoft sentence out of the paragraph on horizontal tying, since Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, and Outlook Express are not unrelated products. - anthony
[edit] Not anti-competitive
Certainly, it is called as such by those who oppose freedom of association and contract, but in truth it's not anti-competitive at all--in fact, it's a perfect example of competition! Kurt Weber 22:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Its not always anti-competitive, but a lot of the time it is. Why, for example, have microsoft been forced to remove media player from XP in th EU? Bluemoose 09:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Because governments there (incorrectly) thought it was anti-competitive. In truth, though, only governments can act anti-competitively--like the EU did when it decided it was going to tell Microsoft how it may or may not build its products. I suggest you read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose: A Personal Statement as well as Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand and others. Kurt Weber 16:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest you read any up-to-date basic economics text book. A lot of people thought it was anti-competitive, there are plenty of other examples as well. The article could be changed to reflect the fact it isnt always anti-competitive. Bluemoose 18:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Those people are wrong. By definition, an anti-competitive act can only occur through the use of physical force or fraud. Simply declaring that if someone buys product X from you that he must also buy product Y from you constitutes neither. It is not anti-competitive behavior; it is an instance of freedom of contract and association that MUST remain unhindered by government thuggery. Kurt Weber 18:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The act described in this article is NEVER anti-competitive, because only governments are capable of acting in an anti-competitive manner. Kurt Weber 21:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Both US and EU law allude to; If a firm abuses its position for reasons including tying as described in this article, it is against the law. Bluemoose 22:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are talking about when you say only governments can act anti-competitevly, I assume this is just your POV, as opposed to something actually held as general consensus among economists. Do you also think governments should not interfere with any regulations or anything like that? Bluemoose 22:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Cite your sources then, I dont think you will be able to find a reputable up-to-date one that says tying is not anti-competitive. thanks Martin 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- My source is my rational mind, which knows that the notion that "tying" is anti-competitive behavior is totally absurd, regardless of how popular it may be. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, any act that does not involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force or fraud against another without his consent is not anti-competitive in the economic sense. Kurt Weber 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Weber is putting forth the fundamental libertarian argument - which basically states the government should not regulate anything not having to do with force or fraud. That's all well and good, but it is not the reality in any major modern government. As for whether tying is anticompetitive or not, the Chicago School puts forth an argument that tying is not anticompetitive. A succinct explanation of the theory is here: http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/source/09-05/Sep05-PaperTrail9=27.pdf. Others, myself included, argue that tying is in fact anticompetitive. The point is, reasonable minds can differ on this subject. From the POV of the U.S. legal community, however, it is very possible that tying theory is, at least temporarily, dead, based on some dicta in the recent Supreme Court case of Verizon v. Trinko, in which the S.C., while not mentioning tying, discussed "monopoly leveraging" and noted that unless the tying company had a "dangerous probability of success" in monopolizing the tied product market, the leveraging claim would fail. This standard puts such a high bar on proving tying that it may have chilled the use of the legal theory (but that's just speculation on my part). --38.117.139.163 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Weber is putting forth Ayn Rand's argument. It seems his opinions have been influenced by philosophers and writers of fiction instead of current world events and examples. My brother in law likes to quote Ms. Rand as well, and now he's a Scientologist. --Daniel Garcia 14:04 02 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mr. Weber is putting forth the fundamental libertarian argument - which basically states the government should not regulate anything not having to do with force or fraud. That's all well and good, but it is not the reality in any major modern government. As for whether tying is anticompetitive or not, the Chicago School puts forth an argument that tying is not anticompetitive. A succinct explanation of the theory is here: http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/source/09-05/Sep05-PaperTrail9=27.pdf. Others, myself included, argue that tying is in fact anticompetitive. The point is, reasonable minds can differ on this subject. From the POV of the U.S. legal community, however, it is very possible that tying theory is, at least temporarily, dead, based on some dicta in the recent Supreme Court case of Verizon v. Trinko, in which the S.C., while not mentioning tying, discussed "monopoly leveraging" and noted that unless the tying company had a "dangerous probability of success" in monopolizing the tied product market, the leveraging claim would fail. This standard puts such a high bar on proving tying that it may have chilled the use of the legal theory (but that's just speculation on my part). --38.117.139.163 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- My source is my rational mind, which knows that the notion that "tying" is anti-competitive behavior is totally absurd, regardless of how popular it may be. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, any act that does not involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force or fraud against another without his consent is not anti-competitive in the economic sense. Kurt Weber 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you read any up-to-date basic economics text book. A lot of people thought it was anti-competitive, there are plenty of other examples as well. The article could be changed to reflect the fact it isnt always anti-competitive. Bluemoose 18:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Because governments there (incorrectly) thought it was anti-competitive. In truth, though, only governments can act anti-competitively--like the EU did when it decided it was going to tell Microsoft how it may or may not build its products. I suggest you read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose: A Personal Statement as well as Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand and others. Kurt Weber 16:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Minor citation correction
Corrected note 7, Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., to reflect correct citation (first two digits in 547 U.S. 28 had been swapped). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.232.235 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
