Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I imagine the parent is questioning why the definition for "a substantial dampening in competition" is so strict. To me it seems that they are claiming that this clearly constitutes a substantial dampening in competition, and are thus questioning why it is not illegal.


FTC's Anti-Trust guide is a useful source[1].

Specifically, the "Mergers"[2] section outlines the cases in which government interference might be efficiency promoting.

[1]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

[2]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...


Do you think that the Okta acquisition of Auth0 promotes or reduces the competiveness of the market?


Clearly, I do not know. Having used both, I do realize their target markets are somewhat separated as is pointed out in the linked article as well. I am dubious on the expansion of Okta's pricing power as a result of this acquisition, but I do not really have the kind of data I would need to be able accurately gauge that.


By that metric, wouldn't profitless growth-over-capitalizing also dampen competition?

It's a tortured argument to say that SoftBank's investments are creating more competition or innovation.


Yes, indeed it would. I guess the difference is it's harder to be objective about whether something is over capitalized.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: