> The laws weren't "changed" to make those monopolies. They were monopolies by the original definition of the law.
This is not correct. Nothing like the Sherman Act existed prior to it even though there were "anti-competition" rules from common law. The Sherman Act was a product of its times and changed the laws and the way of thinking about monopolies.
Standard Oil was never a "monopoly" according to your definition, and yet was declared to be so by the US Supreme Court in 1911.
Your assertions about "monopoly law" are shallower and more dogmatic than its actual application in the real world.
If that’s the case, that my assertions are shallower than the real world application, where is the real world application of any definition of “monopoly” that the EU or the US has applied to platforms that don’t even have 50% market share?
I have already demonstrated that Standard Oil was broken up in spite of not being a "monopoly" or having more than 50% market share. That is an example--you can look up others.
I have no duty to continue to engage to someone who can't exhibit simple reading comprehension or basic use of Google.
So how does that apply to the mobile phone market almost a century later? Again “words mean things”. Luckily, as I’ll informed as the government is they don’t define “monopoly” the way that random HN poster do. If that were the case they would say that Apple has a “monopoly” on smart assistants that can run on AirPods and they would break up that “monopoly” to.
This is not correct. Nothing like the Sherman Act existed prior to it even though there were "anti-competition" rules from common law. The Sherman Act was a product of its times and changed the laws and the way of thinking about monopolies.
Standard Oil was never a "monopoly" according to your definition, and yet was declared to be so by the US Supreme Court in 1911.
Your assertions about "monopoly law" are shallower and more dogmatic than its actual application in the real world.