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. TheCoelacanth · 1790883684 · focus · HN ↗

                              Judges making their own interpretation is the entire problem with anti-trust law.

                              The law is very explicit: no mergers or acquisitions where the "effect may be substantially to lessen competition". Not "will" lessen competition, "may" lessen competition.

                              The law as written should prevent basically any merger between large competitors. Judges have watered that down with bullshit about customer harm that appears nowhere in the law.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.