Thread

1. amelius · 1790860691 · focus · HN ↗

   They should be investigating them because of massively selling below cost price.

   How is this a fair, level, playing field, U.S.? Making a large pile of money to put millions of people out of a job, it warrants some investigations!

   1. gtCameron · 1790860810 · focus · HN ↗

      Do you have any evidence of this assertion? What is 'cost price' and what is being sold below that?

      1. hedora · 1790861450 · focus · HN ↗

         Claude says my token spend is $15k per week. I’m being charged $50.

         They can only do that because of circular finance deals and other fraud. Those deals are also the reason a machine that’d run ~ Claude Opus 4.6 locally costs $5000 instead of the original $1400 MSRP.

         1. arctic-true · 1790864731 · focus · HN ↗

            For antitrust purposes below-cost pricing is not expressly illegal. It is only illegal if there is a “dangerous probability” that the firm in question will be able to recoup its losses after eliminating its competitors by taking away all their demand and then jacking up prices when they’re the only game in town. In the case of your Claude tokens, even if they’re being sold below cost, they’re being sold for more than anyone else is selling tokens. So it’s hard to argue that they’re going to drive everyone else out of the market with their pricing.

            1. amelius · 1790864958 · focus · HN ↗

               > So it’s hard to argue that they’re going to drive everyone else out of the market with their pricing.

               Eh, their AI is going to put millions of people out of a job ...

               1. AnimalMuppet · 1790866912 · focus · HN ↗

                  For the antitrust argument, that is irrelevant.

                  1. amelius · 1790867157 · focus · HN ↗

                     I don't think so. But maybe your definition of fair competition is more narrow than mine.

                     1. Gormo · 1790870306 · focus · HN ↗

                        I think the previous commenter is referring to the actual legally applicable definition, not his own definition or yours.

                        1. amelius · 1790872380 · focus · HN ↗

                           The law doesn't matter, it was not made for this. Let a judge make their own interpretation. If you talk about level playing fields, then you should act like it. Not allow VCs to make piles of money to put everybody else out of business.

                           If this is not unfair competition, then what is?

                           1. AnimalMuppet · 1790873419 · focus · HN ↗

                              Judges are supposed to make their interpretation on the law. The law wasn't made for this? Then you better pass something that is. The alternative is to abandon the rule of law. "Just once, just for this urgent problem" rarely remains confined just to this problem. Keep the rule of law; pass a new one if you need to.

                              1. amelius · 1790873965 · focus · HN ↗

                                 The problem with this approach is that the law will always be lagging behind. It is not fair to change the rules during the game.

                                 Therefore, the only solution is to ensure people act according to the spirit of the law, not the actual law.

                                 If you talk about "fair competition" then "fair" also applies to how the law works. If one party is always one step ahead, then that is not fair.

                                 1. Gormo · 1790880896 · focus · HN ↗

                                    > The problem with this approach is that the law will always be lagging behind. It is not fair to change the rules during the game.

                                    Why is that a problem? Why would we want prescriptive rules to be formulated in advance of the reality to which they're meant to apply being fully understood?

                                    > Therefore, the only solution is to ensure people act according to the spirit of the law, not the actual law.

                                    Which is something our actual legal system already does fairly well, precisly because it doesn't overemphasise technical, instrumental details, and applies broad rules to intentional conduct in an often form-agnostic way. For example, anti-trust laws about collusion and price fixing wouldn't care about what specific communications medium was used to coordinate collusion, apart from validating the evidence that there was indeed collusion.

                                    In this case, I think the mistake you're making is in thinking that restrictions on the introduction of new technologies based on the long-term effect they might have on demand for particular services in the overall economy is something that is within the spirit of the existing law. It isn't. It never has been.

                                    People have certainly worried about how new technologies would impact people's earning power over time, dating back centuries to at least the era of steam engines and railroads, but that's never translated into any legal framework allowing for restraining the development of new technologies. Anti-trust law has nothing to do with it, and the spirit of the law behind it has always been aimed at protecting consumers against market manipulation, not protecting employees against reduced demand for their services.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.