• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 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
        ·
        6 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
          ·
          6 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
            ·
            6 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?