I have several friends who work in antitrust consulting. My understanding from listening to them talk is that monopolists are defined with respect to a market, and defining the relevant market is a task in itself. Surely the defining characteristic of a monopolist is that it has a high proportion of the market share for a given market, and it is not required that the market in question be large? You can have a monopoly over a small market.
ethbr0|3 years ago
And specifically, that a monopoly's nature and actions "[must] suppress or even destroy competition." Think duck typing.
Unfortunately, US vs ATT was never decided, as ATT volunteered to be broken up in 1982.
But the broader approach seems to have been that small monopolies are not harmful to the public good, as they face the potential of competitors (sometimes, larger ones) expanding from unrelated fields into their business.
It's only when a successful company leverages its success into a size (and dominance) that makes competition impossible that it becomes a legally actionable monopoly (by restricting even the possibility of competition).
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._Un...
uhuruity|3 years ago