DC Edit | End to Google-Android monopoly?
Wealth creation initially began to hedge against bad times. But as society got complex, wealth creation has become an end in itself for people. Free markets and technology enhanced the ability of businesses to make money by several thousand times, bringing in the need for regulation to keep capitalism in sync with the larger welfare of the society.
In one of such actions, the US department of justice plans to force Alphabet, the holding company of search giant Google and mobile operating system Android, to sell its popular web browser Chrome. It also plans to order Alphabet to sell the Android software that runs most smartphones or stop making Google services mandatory for running Android software.
The proposals are most appropriate and would go a long way in democratising technology and economy. It augurs well for the US economy as well as the global economy.
In the past, America had invoked these provisions to break the stranglehold of companies that have almost become monopolies in their market. In 1911, the US government broke Standard Oil, an oil monopoly in the US which produced its first billionaire John Davison Rockefeller Sr, into 36 new entities. In 1999, it ordered the splitting of Microsoft to break its hold on browser Internet Explorer. Though Microsoft escaped the split, it stopped making Internet Explorer the default web browser in the Windows operating system. This later on resulted in Google Chrome displacing Internet Explorer and offering cloud-based programmes.
It is generally believed that as an organisation grows it becomes bureaucratic and status quoist. If such an organisation is allowed to acquire a monopoly on business, it will not only stop the emergence of new companies, but also hinder the growth of new ideas and entrepreneurship.
Nevertheless, companies question the fairness in antitrust action against companies which spend millions of dollars and years of efforts to create a successful product.
However, the overall welfare of a society will have precedence over the interests of an organisation. Therefore, no company can be allowed to milk its invention in perpetuity.