> none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power.
This specific comment chain is about the concept of if there is a definite threshold, that a company must be larger than, in order for it to have monopoly power.
> The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power
Yes. That was the point that I was making. That a firm with 50% market share could hold monopoly power. That was it, and I was making no more points than that.
The other person that I was responding too has incorrectly strict definition of "monopoly power", in that he believes that there has to basically only be a single firm in the market, that is backed up by the government, in order for it to have monopoly power.
And thus I have provided definitive evidence, that the courts have held, that his threshold is incorrect.
And I was making no other points, other than to say that it is false to claim that in order to have monopoly power, a company much be "the only game in town", and backed by the government, as the person I was responding to incorrectly claimed.
> it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit
It is relevant, because the courts have not ruled what the relevant market is yet. Even though Epic is initially trying to define the market a certain way, ultimately, the market could be determined as something else.
I agree that there are interesting questions here, to be decided, as to what the market is. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a discussion with someone about the interesting questions, if they are going to spread misinformation on the uninteresting, and completely uncontroversial parts.
At this point, it took me paragraphs and paragraphs, when the original commenter who was engaging dishonestly, and ignoring court precedent and information on government websites, all in order to try and establish an uncontroversial point that they were contesting, which is that a company can have monopoly power, even if they are not the only singular firm in the market.
This specific comment chain is about the concept of if there is a definite threshold, that a company must be larger than, in order for it to have monopoly power.
> The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power
Yes. That was the point that I was making. That a firm with 50% market share could hold monopoly power. That was it, and I was making no more points than that.
The other person that I was responding too has incorrectly strict definition of "monopoly power", in that he believes that there has to basically only be a single firm in the market, that is backed up by the government, in order for it to have monopoly power.
And thus I have provided definitive evidence, that the courts have held, that his threshold is incorrect.
And I was making no other points, other than to say that it is false to claim that in order to have monopoly power, a company much be "the only game in town", and backed by the government, as the person I was responding to incorrectly claimed.
> it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit
It is relevant, because the courts have not ruled what the relevant market is yet. Even though Epic is initially trying to define the market a certain way, ultimately, the market could be determined as something else.
I agree that there are interesting questions here, to be decided, as to what the market is. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a discussion with someone about the interesting questions, if they are going to spread misinformation on the uninteresting, and completely uncontroversial parts.
At this point, it took me paragraphs and paragraphs, when the original commenter who was engaging dishonestly, and ignoring court precedent and information on government websites, all in order to try and establish an uncontroversial point that they were contesting, which is that a company can have monopoly power, even if they are not the only singular firm in the market.