• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s the definition given by your own fucking source. The one you called “cherry-picking.”

    It’s not “a single prong in a standard that has several,” there’s a list of meanings, and one of them applies.

    That page even reminds you: not all monopolies are illegal. Maybe you should re-read it?

    • DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Here, it’s easy:

      Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident.

      Does not in fact say:

      Then courts ask if that monopoly was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident.

      The standard has multiple prongs. You might have “monopoly power” without in fact being a monopoly because being a monopoly requires meeting a legal standard where being the in the leading position of a market is not the singular qualifier.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re quoting a sentence that defines anticompetitive practices, not a sentence that defines a monopoly.

        Here is a sentence from the same page that defines a monopoly:

        Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

        • DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

          Which you seem to take for a granted, but won’t provide even a theoretical for how that might have happened here?