[4eleven7]

True, and I agree, but an 'upper cap' wouldn't be used against just the companies that we don't think provide innovation (such as Amazon in this scenario). The caps would also be used against Tesla and Apple, two very big drivers of innovation, and probably many others. The world would be a worse place without Tesla, and without Apple. Arguably the world could be a better place without Amazon, but that is surely down to consumer voting with their wallet, the executive team, and shareholders encouraging Amazon, rather than the government not restricting Amazon. Amazon aren't buying EA, only because they can.

Once again, how can someone define an 'upper cap', is it market size? Is it revenue, or employee count? Market share? The unintended consequences of an upper limit doesn't seem to me something we should be encouraging.

I could be wrong, it just feels like we shouldn't be restricting everyone because of one bad actor.

[syzar]

From my perspective for every large innovator like Apple there are several like Comcast. While Apple would not exist in the hypothetical world where max size exists for companies who knows what other innovations would exist or would not have been quashed by large companies. There are unintended consequences with the status quo. It’s easy to overlook those because we are used to the system in place. Are those unintended consequences worth keeping? I don’t know but it’s worth exploring other options.