2/ The United States would not allow Brown Shoe Company to define two different markets (Brown was medium priced shoes, Kinney was a low-end retailer & provider). Instead, the US found the only practical way to define the market was "footwear." Why?https://t.co/rH8ZIFd8Jb
— Game Over Thirty (aka RallyCarDelta) (@GameOverThirty) June 21, 2023
4/ as much as possible to make their case. A combined market, where ALL video game products compete with each other, weakens the FTC.
— Game Over Thirty (aka RallyCarDelta) (@GameOverThirty) June 21, 2023
But, oddly enough, the very case the FTC references to define their market found that dividing the market into small segments wasn't useful.
6/ Perhaps forgetting what Brown Shoe vs. US was all about...(Brown was not allowed to differentiate markets)
— Game Over Thirty (aka RallyCarDelta) (@GameOverThirty) June 21, 2023
In the VERY NEXT paragraph, the FTC makes the bold claim that the #NintendoSwitch should be excluded from the market.
You can't make this stuff up. It's right there. pic.twitter.com/7I1ixXCnvQ
There’s absolutely no evidence of a SSNIP style test that would exclude Nintendo. Similarly, Brown Shoe (practical indicia) speaks against both “high performance consoles” and “cloud” as distinct markets. https://t.co/CEn6jLmEqW
— Richard Hoeg (@HoegLaw) June 20, 2023
Essay Pro