Shared publicly  - 
10
3
faried nawaz's profile photoKOICHI OSAKO's profile photoPhillip Lindsay's profile photoAndres Ferrate's profile photo
4 comments
 
I am reading a book that covered the history of Rockefeller and Standard Oil. I am struck by the similarities.
 
The charges don't make sense -- why would they give people free access to their competitor's product? Sure, it deprives the competitor of money, but it also deprives them since the competitor had a product which was a substitute for theirs.

Sure, it doesn't have to make sense for them to do it, but something sounds fishy.
 
+John Tamplin the products are very imperfect substitutes. If you want to watch soccer then nothing else will do. This deprived them of revenue meaning they weren't competitive in bidding wars.
 
The idea is that the next time they compete with the others for rights to a PPV show, or a satellite station, they can point out the fact that their competitors' security systems have been hacked repeatedly while theirs haven't.
Add a comment...