Today's Ridiculous Lawsuit: Wal-Mart, Netflix Sued Over Conspiracy To Create A Monopoly
from the ugh dept
Way back in 2002, Wal-Mart decided to enter the online DVD rental business, launching an almost exact replica of Netflix. Of course, Wal-Mart quickly discovered what almost every other player in that marker discovered: just offering a competing service to Netflix isn't enough to get anyone to use it. Wal-Mart had a lot of difficulty signing up customers (and keeping them once they signed up). The whole project was going nowhere fast, and eventually, Wal-Mart decided that it was a waste of time to throw more money into a project that was pretty far removed from its main business, and decided to simply let Netflix take over its online DVD rental service. This was a reasonable business move.However, nearly four years later, a lawsuit has been filed claiming that Netflix and Wal-Mart "conspired to create a monopoly" in the online video rental market, and as a result of that monopoly, Blockbuster raised its prices. Read that sentence again. Netflix and Wal-Mart are being accused of creating a monopoly -- and because of that monopoly another major player in the space raised its prices.
If there's another major player in the space, there is no monopoly.
Besides, the folks bringing the lawsuit are going to have to convince a judge that the relevant market is online DVD subscription services, rather than any kind of home movie viewing service (which includes store rentals, purchases, internet downloads, subscription services and more). This seems like a random bogus lawsuit targeted at a company with deep, deep pockets (Wal-Mart), rather than anything serious.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, dvd, monopoly, online rental
Companies: blockbuster, netflix, wal-mart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Going broke
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm confused
Forget the charges, how can there even be a law in place against this idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If that news release accurately summarizes the lawsuit, then that doesn't seem like a well-drafted complaint, but that doesn't mean the lawsuit is groundless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now this may be completely backwards but, wouldn't Blockbuster be forced to LOWER it's prices in response to a "monopoly" in order to compete with them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not illegal?
No, it's not. ABUSING a monopoly position is illegal, and CONSPIRING to act as a monopoly (price fixing, other restraints on trade) is. BEING a monopoly is not illegal at all.
"All monopolies in terms of railroads, oil, computers, phone, etc. are illegal and will be broken up."
Wrong. Just.. wrong. On all counts.
"Just look in the mid 90s when Microsoft was forced to sell off parts of its company because they had pretty much enveloped the entire market."
No, wonder boy. MS was NOT forced to sell ANYTHING. MS even weaseled out of most of the fines. MS was NOT on trial for being a monopoly. MS was on trial because they cut deals with the big OEMs to give those OEMs massive discounts on Windows as long as they agreed to only sell Windows. In some other cases, MS offered no discounts, but tacked on tons of fees and other punitive measures if you dealt in any non-MS products.
"Right now MS has to compete with Apple/Mac and free Linux distros."
Yep, but this is totally irrelevant. This has NOTHING to do with MS being a monopoly or not.
You fail. All of it. A lot. Play again later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monopoly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monopoly, no, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stupidity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not illegal?
1. Being a monopoly is not illegal.
2. How do you know for certain that having two electric companies "would result in a loss"?
3. MS was never declared a monopoly and it never was forced to sell off any parts of itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someone wiser than I once said,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dumb jealous lawsuits!
PS my area was brooklyn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, Walmart is getting there
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Walmart and Netflix
WM is the anti-christ of retail. The reasons are many AND with the money that I save by NEVER shopping there I went to Morocco last year, Venezuela the year before that and Italy the year before that, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No monopoly, just a the ultimate bully
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As it is, the "factual" information in your paragraph is very shady. And anyone who does not read this with a grain of salt or any semblance of questions after reading it needs to go back to school a learn a little more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The only reason a small business will contribute something is if it will give them a tax break and/or the one they are contributing to happens to be their own charity of which the make profit from.
Fuck small businesses, I'd rather see a store like Wallmart provide great service, so what if they are the only game in town.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]