Anti-Compettive Much?
On a more serious note... Has the FTC/SEC etc examined this deal to ensure that it in some way BENEFITS consumer choice and competition? If it does not, then they should reject the deal on the ground of being anti-competitive....time to use the teeth these monopoly busting laws already have in place!!!!.
We need to re-examine as a society the very intricate negative aspects of allowing a corporate entity (not a real person) the ability to purchase their competition's business.
It would seem inherent that this would be bad for competition and the general public, and that the competitor now with a monopoly, (or at best a less competitive market) would be the person who having the most to gain, would obviously pay the most to get rid of competition. If Business A is selling wireless chips, and Business B who also sells wireless chips want to cash out, then Business A should only be allowed to buy them if all these stipulations are met:
* No Other company is willing to make a reasonably close offer (it can be less than what the potential monopolist would be willing to pay for a monopoly)
* The company has some reason to need to sell their business. Financial hard times, a business owner wanting to retire or change careers, etc. Not just because their competitor would pay a handsome sum to remove competition from the market.
* it can be shown that the local market cannot support both business, and the failure of one of them seems unavoidable.
Two businesses owners should not be able to ignore and sneak around the anti monopoly laws by colluding together to circumvent them.
Say a small town has two Gas stations A and B. If the owner of Station B wants to sell, it is much better for everyone in town (except for the owner of A) to have competition with prices for Gas. Sure you can argue that Station A has a right to own both stations, but in a totally free society he could also own all the land for houses, and just rent etc. Eventually one mans freedom of business becomes another mans dictator. Eventually people won't put with it and will move. I know if the town I lived in allowed Gas to go up %50 because some jerk was allowed to buy both stations I would move to a town where they didn't let people act like jerks like that.
The net result will be that yes you can have your rights on the extreme side of letting people be jerks to each others, but free to be jerks, and eventually you have a town full of jerks.
On the other hand if you set rules for your society that you have to be somewhat fair and reasonable in your dealings with those around you, you will start to have a more pleasant society to live in.
So it should be pretty obvious, let people create and sell businesses as they see fit, but they can't start business just to sell them to Google, M$ or Intel. If you start to examine the patents that companies collect by buying their competition, and then LOCKING people out of researching and developing in these intellectual areas, it is very costly.
And yes don't ever think that IP and copyright is anything other than curbing learning and sharing of knowledge.
Intel to acquire wireless chipmaker for $1.4bn
