Monopoly vs Antitrust Abuse
Comments debate the legal distinction between simply having monopoly or market power, which is not illegal, and abusing it through anticompetitive practices, referencing antitrust laws, FTC guidelines, and cases like Microsoft.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
You don’t recall correctly. There is no such a thing as “monopoly power”. A monopoly is a situation in which a market is controlled by a single company. It is a purely descriptive term, unrelated to whether that companies abuses that situation or not.What you are saying seems closer to “abuse of dominant position”, which is the cornerstone in EU antitrust law, but not so clear in US law where the bar to prove abuse is higher. This does not require a monopoly, just a market share large enough
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly power to take over other markets is.
This is it. Having a monopoly is OK. Being anticompetitive is when you run into trouble, even potentially without a monopoly.
It's explained here, [1]. Monopoly is not the right term. See market dominance instead.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law
A monopoly is merely having sufficient market share. Which isn't necessarily bad, although it usually is. What you're talking about is abusing a monopoly.
Having a monopoly is not illegal, only abusing it to prevent competition is.
Being a monopoly is not against the law. Abusing your monopoly is.
Seems like the responses ignore that fact that it’s not illegal to have a monopoly. It’s illegal to unfairly use your monopoly to prevent competition. That’s what this is about.
You are one of those confused HNers.Monopoly power is different from abuse of monopoly power.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Establishing_dominanc...
may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. You need to have a monopoly first.