• DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 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
        ·
        7 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?

        • mindbleach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Ability means “they can,” not “they did.”