Dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition... and does not harm consumers and innovation.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
In the absence of sound oversight, responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system.
When a company is not being guided by the products they make and what the customers need, but by how they can manipulate the system - get regulations on their competitors, or mandates on using their products, or eliminating foreign competition - it just lowers the overall standard of living and hurts the disadvantaged the most.
Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress.
Regardless of the industry, antitrust law is meant to benefit consumers - not competitors.
Manufacturers must accept responsibility for their customers' safety.
Companies shouldn't use the law to prevent consumers from doing something legal.
Only a monopolist could study a business and ruin it by giving away products.
I don't think any business has to give up legal protections in order to simplify. The main consideration is that whatever protection, rights and remedies a corporation wants, they should be put in terms that are understandable to the consumer.
I do not want to put U.S. companies in a position where their competitors are behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the way they are required to behave. That is neither fair, nor will it solve the problem.
If a company is not a monopoly, then the law assumes market competition can restrain the company's actions. No problem. If a monopoly exists, but the monopoly does not engage in acts designed to destroy competition, then we can assume that it earned and is keeping its monopoly the pro-consumer way: by out-innovating its competitors.