Marketing domination
In a previous post we explained why, in our view, the criticism that DG Comp only targets U.S. companies does not make much sense (see here) .
But now we have discovered -with the help of the above pic (thanks to Gil Ohana for sending it to us!)- that antitrust enforcement concerning U.S. corporations may be based on a big misunderstanding rooted on different terminology. Whereas in Europe we’re suspicious of any reference to dominance , in the States this term does not have the same connotations. By bragging about their dominance on the market (like S&M does in the photo), some firms might be unvoluntarily attracting antitrust scrutiny. The bottomline: there are no U.S. dominant firms, only marketing tricks.
[Yes, I know, this “theory” doesn’t pass the laugh test, but the pic is good anyway].
A piece of important advice: don’t make the same mistake I made, and don’t google SM domination (at least while at the office…). Really, don’t!
Chillin'Competition 
Alfonso, modesty requires that I give credit for the photo to Mark Lemley.
Gil Ohana
20 November 2012 at 4:40 pm
Pls never write that don’t Google something in office… It is hard to follow… I did and within 3 seconds, i realized sometimes we should follow wise man’s advice.. lol
Avinash Dadhich
21 November 2012 at 12:34 pm