<\/a><\/p>\n When was the last time you used a search engine other than Google? When was the last time you bought a book online from somewhere other than Amazon?<\/p>\n You probably can\u2019t think of a time because Amazon and Google essentially have monopolies over their respective corners of the internet. While we might notice how are choice of airline or cable company is extremely limited, we recognize less the monopolistic qualities of these internet giants.<\/p>\n Just because Google and Amazon don\u2019t look like what we picture a monopoly to be it doesn\u2019t mean they don\u2019t have monopoly power.<\/p>\n In order to look at whether these tech giants have monopoly power we need to look historically at the laws designed to prevent this kind of power.<\/p>\n The United States Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1980 in an effort to prevent companies from having monopolies that stifle competition, harm consumers or raise prices. The Sherman Act along with the subsequent Federal Trade Commission Act and Clayton Act are the core of American antitrust law.<\/p>\n These antitrust regulations were enforced fairly aggressively by the Justice Department from the 1930s until the 1960s. Then came Robert Bork, the Yale Law professor and supreme court nominee. Bork argued that the main concern of regulator should be solely if prices for the consumer were dropping. His ideas became the policy of the US Department of Justice when he became solicitor general under Richard Nixon and they have remained the mindset of the government until today. Bork\u2019s ideas on antitrust are at the center of American antirust regulation enforcement. His influence is the reason why there has been a decline in antitrust regulation enforcement over the last 50 years.<\/p>\n In Move Fast and Break Things<\/a> <\/em>Jonathan Taplin argues that Amazon, Google and Facebook would all be prosecuted under antitrust laws if it weren\u2019t for Bork.<\/p>\n When you think of a monopoly Google or Amazon are probably not what you picture. You might think of the oil and steel barons of the late 19th<\/sup> and early 20th<\/sup> century or the telecomm monopoly AT&T once had. Or you might even think of the board game Monopoly.<\/p>\n Unlike the traditional monopolies, Google and Amazon lack a tangible product. They don\u2019t have physical control over all production of steel or ownership of all phone lines. With Google or Amazon there isn\u2019t anyone and anything standing in the way of someone creating a new search engine or e-book market. Their businesses lie within cyberspace they aren\u2019t necessarily tangible. In a way, they have a monopoly of eyes. They have majority control over the platforms people use to consumer information of buy things online. They have a monopoly of users.<\/p>\n Legally, The Supreme Court of the United States has defined<\/a> monopoly power as \u201cthe power to control prices or exclude competition,\u201d this definition also includes an assumption that the company has a majority market share. Using this legal definition as a guide let\u2019s see if Amazon and Google have monopoly power.<\/p>\n Amazon and Alphabet, Google\u2019s parent company, have many different aspects of their businesses. Therefore, we will only look at one part of each of company. For Google, we will look at search and search for advertising. For Amazon, we will be analyzing the e-book market.<\/p>\n 86% of all e-book sales in the United States occurred on Amazon in 2016, according to Authors Earnings\u2019<\/a> February 2017 report. Amazon clearly has majority market power. They have the ability to control prices or even stop all books from a publisher from being sold on Amazon. Since they are the largest marketplace for e-books it would be detrimental for a publisher if their books were not sold on Amazon.<\/p>\nA Brief History of Antitrust in the United States<\/h3>\n
Are Google and Amazon Monopolies? \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n